What the Iraq War is really About ?

[truthseeka]

What the Iraq War is About

By Paul Craig Roberts

The author of this article earned his PhD from the University of Virginia. He was the former U.S. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury where he earned the title “father of Reagonomics.” In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States. He obviously knows the inner workings of Government and media. He dares to speak out about the powerful, nefarious influence of Jewish extremists over these two most important shapers of the modern world. Those who oppose the Iraq War are often called unpatriotic. Roberts’ record is so sterling that he is one critic of the war whose patriotism cannot be seriously questioned. He shows how the Iraq War is not a patriotic war in any sense, but an anti-American catastrophe orchestrated by Jewish supremacists serving the interests of a foreign nation. It is a war that does irreparable harm to America.

PCR — The Bush regime has quagmired America into a sixth year of war in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight. The cost of these wars of aggression is horrendous. Official U.S. combat casualties stand at 4,538 dead. Officially, 29,780 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq. Experts have argued that these numbers are understatements. Regardless, these numbers are only the tip of the iceberg.

On April 17, 2008, The Associated Press reported that a new study released by the RAND Corp. concludes that “some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post-traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries.”

On April 21, 2008, OpEdNews reported that an internal email from Gen. Michael J. Kussman, undersecretary for health at the Veterans Administration, to Ira Katz, head of mental health at the VA, confirms a McClatchy Newspaper report that 126 veterans per week commit suicide. To the extent that the suicides are attributable to the war, more than 500 deaths should be added to the reported combat fatalities each month.

Turning to Iraqi deaths, expert studies support as many as 1.2 million dead Iraqis, almost entirely civilians. Another 2 million Iraqis have fled their country, and there are 2 million displaced Iraqis within Iraq.

Afghan casualties are unknown.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered unconscionable civilian deaths and damage to housing, infrastructure and environment. Iraq is afflicted with depleted uranium and open sewers.

Then there are the economic costs to the United States. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates the full cost of the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq to be between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. The dollar price of oil and gasoline have tripled, and the dollar has lost value against other currencies, declining dramatically even against the lowly Thai baht. Before Bush launched his wars of aggression, one U.S. dollar was worth 45 baht. Today, the dollar is only worth 30 baht.

The United States cannot afford these costs. Prior to his resignation last month, U.S. Comptroller General David Walker reported that the accumulated unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government total $53 trillion dollars. The U.S. government cannot cover these liabilities. The Bush regime even has to borrow the money from foreigners to pay for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no more certain way to bankrupt the country and dethrone the dollar as world reserve currency.

The moral costs are perhaps the highest. All of the deaths, injuries and economic costs to the United States and its victims are due entirely to lies told by the president and vice president of the United States, by the secretary of defense, the national security advisor, the secretary of state and, of course, by the media, including the “liberal” New York Times. All of these lies were uttered in behalf of an undeclared agenda. “Our” government has still not told “we the people” the real reasons “our” government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

Instead, the American sheeple have accepted a succession of transparent lies: weapons of mass destruction, al-Qaida connections and complicity in the 9-11 attack, overthrowing a dictator and “bringing democracy” to Iraqis.

The great moral American people would rather believe government lies than acknowledge the government’s crimes and hold the government accountable.

There are many effective ways in which a moral people could protest.


Consider investors, for example. Clearly Halliburton and military suppliers are cleaning up. Investors flock to the stocks in order to participate in the rise in value from booming profits. But what would a moral people do? Wouldn’t they boycott the stocks of the companies that are profiting from the Bush regime’s war crimes?

If the United States invaded Iraq for any of the succession of reasons the Bush regime has given, why would the United States have spent $750 million on a fortress “embassy” with anti-missile systems and its own electricity and water systems spread over 104 acres? No one has ever seen or heard of such an embassy before. Clearly, this “embassy” is constructed as the headquarters of an occupying colonial ruler.

The fact is that Bush invaded Iraq with the intent of turning Iraq into an American colony. The so-called government of Nouri al-Maliki is not a government. Maliki is the well-paid front man for U.S. colonial rule. Maliki’s government does not exist outside the protected Green Zone, the headquarters of the American occupation.

If colonial rule were not the intent, the United States would not be going out of its way to force Moqtada al-Sadr’s 60,000 man militia into a fight. Sadr is a Shi’ite who is a real Iraqi leader, perhaps the only Iraqi who could end the sectarian conflict and restore some unity to Iraq. As such, he is regarded by the Bush regime as a danger to the American puppet Maliki. Unless the United States is able to purchase or rig the upcoming Iraqi election, Sadr is likely to emerge as the dominant figure. This would be a highly unfavorable development for the Bush regime’s hopes of establishing its colonial rule behind the facade of a Maliki fake democracy. Rather than work with Sadr in order to extract themselves from a quagmire, the Americans will be doing everything possible to assassinate Sadr.

Why does the Bush regime want to rule Iraq? Some speculate that it is a matter of “peak oil.” Oil supplies are said to be declining even as demand for oil multiplies from developing countries such as China. According to this argument, the United States decided to seize Iraq to ensure its own oil supply.

This explanation is problematic. Most U.S. oil comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. The best way for the United States to ensure its oil supplies would be to protect the dollar’s role as world reserve currency. Moreover, $3 trillion to $5 trillion would have purchased a tremendous amount of oil. Prior to the U.S. invasions, the U.S. oil import bill was running less than $100 billion per year. Even in 2006, total U.S. imports from OPEC countries was $145 billion, and the U.S. trade deficit with OPEC totaled $106 billion. Three trillion dollars could have paid for U.S. oil imports for 30 years; $5 trillion could pay the U.S. oil bill for a half-century had the Bush regime preserved a sound dollar.

The more likely explanation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq is the neoconservative Bush regime’s commitment to the defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel. Israel hopes to steal all of the West Bank and southern Lebanon for its territorial expansion. An American colonial regime in Iraq not only buttresses Israel from attack, but also can prevent Syria and Iran from giving support to the Palestinians and Lebanese.

The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial expansion. Americans are dying and bleeding to death financially for Israel. Bush’s “war on terror” is a hoax that serves to cover U.S. intervention in the Middle East in behalf of “greater Israel.”

[townies14]

where did this article come from?

[Rookies]

The author of this article earned his PhD from the University of Virginia.

Yep- and the rumour is the resident White House idiot graduated from Yale.

[StarnetGypsy]

Originally Posted by townies14

where did this article come from?

From Representative David Duke's website - What the Iraq War is About | The Official Website of Representative David Duke, PhD

you can usually find where by taking a sentence from the article and googling it. it will show you all the places it appears, so long as it's on the internet.

[truthseeka]

JEWISH WRITERS CLAIM POWERFUL ZIONISTS DROVE USA INTO MID-EAST WAR FOR SAKE OF ISRAEL!

When Congressman James Moran (D-VA) told an audience that leaders of American Jewish groups were pushing America into a war with Iraq, he was denounced as an "anti-Semite" and pressured to resign. (click here)

When Syndicated columnist and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan accused Jewish neo-conservatives and the US-Israeli lobby of pushing America into a war against Israel's enemies, he was also widely denounced as an "anti-Semite." (click here)


But what are we to make of the many outspoken Jewish writers, Jewish intellectuals and Jewish activists who have been warning us about the exact same thing? Should we dismiss these jews as "anti-Semites" or "self-hating Jews"? Following are some very revealing quotes from just a few of these Jewish writers and journalists.

================================================== ==========

Joe Klein, Time Magazine, Time.com, February 5, 2003

"A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.

The fantasy involves a domino theory. The destruction of Saddam's Iraq will not only remove an enemy of long-standing but will also change the basic power equation in the region. It will send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils of support for Islamic terrorists. It will send a message to the Palestinians too: Democratize and make peace on Israeli terms, or forget about a state of your own." (click here)

Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine, October 24, 2002

Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein's deputy told the New York Times this week, "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel." Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe.

The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of "President Bush" is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king's Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests. (click here)

Ari Shavit, April 5, 2003 Haaretz News Service (Israel)

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.

In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town (Washington): the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history." (click here)

James Rosen, April 6, 2003 The Sacramento Bee (California)

"In 1996, as Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to take office, eight Jewish neoconservative leaders sent him a six-page memo outlining an aggressive vision of government. At the top of their list was overthrowing Saddam and replacing him with a monarch under the control of Jordan.

The neoconservatives sketched out a kind of domino theory in which the governments of Syria and other Arab countries might later fall or be replaced in the wake of Saddam's ouster. They urged Netanyahu to spurn the Oslo peace accords and to stop making concessions to the Palestinians.

Lead writer of the memo was Perle. Other signatories were Feith, now undersecretary of defense, and Wurmser, a senior adviser to John Bolton, undersecretary of state.

Fred Donner, a professor of Near Eastern history at the University of Chicago, said he was struck by the similarities between the ideas in the memo and ideas now at the forefront of Bush's foreign policy." (click here)


Thomas Friedman, April 4 2003 New York Time Columnist

I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

It is not only the neo-conservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris."(click here)

Dr. Henry Makow Phd., February 10, 2003 Writer, Inventor of Board game "Scruples"

If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides, Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess.

Everybody knows that:

1. The only country that fears Iraq's WMD's is Israel;

2. American-Jewish neo-conservatives on the Defence Policy Board (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) planned this war in 1998 and made it Bush Administration policy;

3. The purpose of the war is to change the balance of power in the Middle East so Israel can settle the Palestinian issue on its own terms; and

4. Congress trembles in fear before the Israeli Lobby, "AIPAC."

At this perilous juncture in US history, there is no effective opposition because Zionist Jews appear to control both parties. The Jewish "Anti Defamation League" considers it a barometer of anti Semitism to say, "Jews have too much power." But is something anti- Semitic if it is true? Anti Semitism is racial prejudice. Zionist power is not a racial prejudice; it is a fact of life. When a special interest group hijacks American foreign policy, it is a patriotic duty to say so.

In recent decades, Zionists have succeeded in making support for Zionism synonymous with "Jewish." They have made Israel appear to be a vulnerable country facing annihilation in a sea of bloodthirsty Arabs. In fact, Israel has 200-400 nuclear bombs and is one of the most powerful nations on earth. It has evaded many opportunities for a just peace because it's secret agenda is to dominate the region. Israel keeps this quiet because most Jews, including Israelis, did not sign on for that. (click here)

Israel Shamir, Israeli Author

"The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all." Judged by this measure, the Jews rule supreme. Indeed, when I referred to 'Jewish media lords' during a UNESCO conference in the summer of 2001, the audience's hearts missed a beat.

The yet-unfought War on Iraq changed this. The American Ultimatum date was set on 17 March, the Jewish feast of Purim. Purim, 1991 saw destruction of Iraqi armies and death of 200,000 Iraqis. Too many coincidences for a purely American war."

“The powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made congress into `Israeli occupied territory’, it has seen to it that numerous officials with ‘dual loyalties’ occupy strategic decision-making positions in the Bush administration…” (click here)


Jack Bernstein, Author, The Life of An American Jew in Racist Israel (following prediction was made in 1984!)

"The Zionists who rule Israel and the Zionists in America have been trying to trick the U.S. into a Mideast war on the side of Israel. They almost succeeded when U.S. Marines were sent to Lebanon in 1982. The blood of the 250 American Marines who died in Lebanon is dripping from the hands of the Israeli and American Zionists.

If more Americans are not made aware of the truth about Zionist Israel, you can be sure that, sooner or later, those atheists who claim to be God's Chosen People will trick the U.S. into a Mideast war against the Arabs who in the past have always been America's best friends. (CLICK HERE)

[CTRL] Jewish Writers Claim Powerful Zionists Drove USA Into...War For

[StarnetGypsy]

good find Seeka.

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history ...."

Ya know, that's about the only thing that's made sense to me as to why we invaded Iraq in the first place. The only other thing that made sense to me was that Saudia ran us outta their country and we needed another place in the region to establish a presence .... in between Syria & Iran.

[Chip Wantsome]

And is there any real suprise that oil has gone up? Its the big pissing contest.

Support Isreal at your own risk, the price will be paid at the pump.

[StarnetGypsy]

Big Shift in China's Oil Policy

With Iraq Deal Dissolved by War, Beijing Looks Elsewhere

By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; D01



SHANGHAI -- Until recently, China's view of the global energy map focused narrowly on the Middle East, which holds roughly two-thirds of the world's oil. Special attention was directed toward one well-supplied country: Iraq.

Through cultivation of Saddam Hussein's government, China sought to develop some of Iraq's more promising reserves. Beijing advocated lifting the United Nations sanctions that prevented investment in Iraq's oil patch and limited sales of its production.

Then the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China's stakes. The war and its aftermath have reshaped China's basic conception of the geopolitics of oil and added urgency to its mission to lessen dependence on Middle East supplies. It has reinforced China's fears that it is locked in a zero-sum contest for energy with the world's lone superpower, prompting Beijing to intensify its search for new sources, international relations and energy experts say.

As a vocal camp in Congress recoils at the prospect of a Chinese state-owned company, Cnooc Ltd., taking control of the California-based Unocal Corp., the Bush administration's decision to wage the war in Iraq stands out as a crucial factor in explaining how China came to scour the earth for energy and why the effort is likely to remain central to U.S.-Chinese relations for some time, those analysts say.

"Iraq changed the government's thinking," said Pan Rui, an international relations expert at Fudan University in Shanghai. "The Middle East is China's largest source of oil. America is now pursuing a grand strategy, the pursuit of American hegemony in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is the number one oil producer, and Iraq is number two [in terms of reserves]. Now, the United States has direct influence in both countries."

Many other factors help explain China's motives in dispatching its energy companies abroad for new stocks. Oil demand is exploding in China as people embrace automobiles and as factories, apartment towers and office buildings proliferate. For the third summer in a row, China is rationing energy, limiting production in industrial areas.

In little more than a decade, China has changed from a net exporter of oil into the world's second-largest importer, trailing only the United States.

Concern is mounting about future prospects for China's domestic oil production, which supplies about two-thirds of the country's crude oil needs. China's government estimates that it will need 600 million tons of crude oil a year by 2020, more than triple its expected output. Worldwide, the best oil fields are already claimed.

For the United States, Europe and Japan, the oil shocks of the 1970s supplied the lessons that have shaped their thinking about energy. China is a latecomer to the vagaries of the global energy business. It is grappling with how to manage dramatic growth and soaring demand for energy at the same time it confronts the implications of interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

"Many people argue that oil interests are the driving force behind the Iraq war," said Zhu Feng, a security expert at Beijing University. "For China, it has been a reminder and a warning about how geopolitical changes can affect its own energy interests. So China has decided to focus much more intently to address its security."

Throughout China's modern history, and particularly under Communist Party rule, the country's leaders have sought self-sufficiency -- a drive fueled by nationalist pride and the experience of colonialism, which fed notions that the outside world wants to prevent China's rise as a great power.

Under the rule of Mao Zedong, China -- under the banner of fending for itself -- focused on oil production in its northeast, near the city of Daqing. The government's current push to secure foreign oil fields is driven by worries that there may one day be too little oil to meet worldwide demand and that foreign powers -- in particular the United States -- will choke China.

"If the world oil stocks were exceeded by growth, who would provide energy to China?" said Shen Dingli, an international relations expert at Fudan University, who advises the government on security policy. "America would protect its own energy supply. The U.S. is China's major competitor."

Such fears involve Taiwan, the self-governing island claimed by China. The United States has pledged to help Taiwan should China attack. Officials in Beijing envision being cut off from energy supplies by the U.S. Navy in the event of war.

Many energy experts say owning oil fields provides no real energy security. It does not cushion against a rising cost of energy because no one country is large enough to determine the market price. Neither does it ensure access, because getting oil where it is needed depends largely upon shipping lanes policed by the U.S. Navy.

"There's an illusion that ownership ensures either volume or price," said William H. Overholt, director of the Rand Center for Asia-Pacific Policy in Santa Monica, Calif. "Oil is an internationally traded commodity. The key is having secure lines of supply from the Middle East."

Even the chairman of Cnooc asserted in an interview that buying foreign oil fields would give China additional security, dismissing the notion that anything other than commercial interest motivates his company's $18.5 billion bid for Unocal.

"In today's world, as long as you have money, you can buy oil from anywhere," Fu Chengyu said.

Fu maintained that Cnooc's interest in Unocal is purely commercial. The Chinese company is eager to have Unocal's substantial oil and gas reserves in Southeast Asia to help feed the liquid-natural-gas terminals it is developing in coastal China.

For China's leaders, however, buying foreign oil and gas fields in the name of energy security has become a central mission. Throughout the 1990s, China made deals to lock in long-term supplies and buy installations from Africa to Latin America. In 2002, Cnooc became the largest offshore oil producer in Indonesia when it bought a field from the Spanish firm Repsol YPF SA.

The Iraq war substantially intensified the foreign push. Most immediately, it destroyed China's hopes of developing large assets in Iraq. China had been waiting for the end of sanctions to begin work on the Al-Ahdab field in central Iraq, under a $1.3 billion contract signed in 1997 by its largest state-owned firm, China National Petroleum Corp. The field's production potential has been estimated at 90,000 barrels a day. China was also pursuing rights to a far bigger prize -- the Halfayah field, which could produce 300,000 barrels a day. Together, those two fields might have delivered quantities equivalent to 13 percent of China's current domestic production.

But the larger impact of the war was on China's understanding of the rules of the global energy game.

"The turning point in China's energy strategy was the Iraq war," said Tong Lixia, an energy expert at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, which is affiliated with China's Commerce Ministry. "After 2003, both the companies and the government realized China could not rely on one or two oil production areas. It's too risky."

This year, China began work on a strategic oil reserve in coastal Zhejiang province that would allow the country to operate without imports for as long as three months. But the biggest emphasis has been on securing new stocks abroad, particularly in neighboring countries such as Kazakhstan and Russia, to limit dependence on shipping lanes.

China National Petroleum Corp. led the way. Since 2003, the company has signed 20 contracts to explore or purchase production facilities in 12 countries, including Peru, Tunisia, Azerbaijan and Mauritania. In 2004, the company's production of natural gas at overseas facilities nearly doubled from the previous year. Its overseas oil production climbed by a fifth.

Late last year, President Hu Jintao said Chinese companies would invest $5 billion in oil projects in Argentina.

So far, however, China's foreign campaign has delivered more lessons in the difficulties of the energy business than energy itself. In June 2003, Beijing hailed a $150 billion agreement with Russia to tap fields in Siberia and send the oil through a new pipeline to China. The project was to supply as much as one-third of China's needed imports by 2030. But that deal appeared to disintegrate when the Russian signatory, Yukos Oil Co., fell into disarray last year after its chief founder was jailed on tax-evasion charges. Japan appears poised to capture the Siberian oil with a promise of at least $6 billion to develop the fields, though recent indications are that Beijing is putting together an even more generous package to bring the project back, according to an adviser to the government.

With so much competition for assets, China has pursued deals with international pariah states that are off-limits to Western oil companies because of sanctions, security concerns or the threat of bad publicity. China National Petroleum is the largest shareholder in a consortium running much of the oil patch in Sudan, a country accused by the United States of genocide in its western region of Darfur. Last year, China signed a $70 billion oil and gas purchase agreement with Iran, undercutting efforts by the United States and Europe to isolate Teheran and force it to give up plans for nuclear weapons. If Cnooc acquires Unocal, it would have gas fields and a pipeline in Burma, whose operation by the U.S. company has been criticized by human-rights groups.

"No matter if it's rogue's oil or a friend's oil, we don't care," said an energy adviser to the central government who spoke on the condition he not be identified, citing the threat of government disciplinary action. "Human rights? We don't care. We care about oil. Whether Iran would have nuclear weapons or not is not our business. America cares, but Iran is not our neighbor. Anyone who helps China with energy is a friend."

Special correspondents Eva Woo and Jason Cai contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Crony]

I absolutely hate the lying/hypocritical media, almost as much as lawyers:

Katie Couric calls the media's pre-Iraq War coverage "embarrassing"
- Mahalo.com 10 hours ago -On May 28, Katie Couric stated that the media's pre-Iraq War coverage failed to ask tough questions. According to Couric, media groups feared retaliation and being cut off by the Bush administration. Consequently, they were compelled to be supportive of Bush administration's stance.

[StarnetGypsy]

ayep. the days of "Deep Throat", and investigative journalists like Bob Woodward and Carl Berstein are a thing of the past ...

Monster corporations now own the media outlets, and they're now focused on selling products with "entertainment news", not actual news

once the election is over, we'll be back getting fed crap about Brittney & Paris

[truthseeka]

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.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.

The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying to secure the accord.

The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.

[StarnetGypsy]

I was waiting for Bush/Cheney to sway the balance of the election to their party ...

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

wish they were more specific as to which Arab states were voicing resentment ...

But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation".

... so what do you do when the Iranians protest too loudly?



Analysis: Growing talk of Iran attack

The BBC's Middle East Editor, Jeremy Bowen, looks at increasing speculation that Iran may come under attack because of its nuclear programme.

The debate on Iran's nuclear intentions is heating up again, as is talk of attack

Last December American intelligence agencies said they had "high confidence" that in late 2003 Iran had stopped trying to build nuclear weapons.

That seemed to end much of the talk about an American - or Israeli - attempt to destroy the facilities that Iran has developed for what it insists is a purely peaceful nuclear programme.

Plenty of influential people in the Middle East, Europe and the United States think an attack on Iran would have consequences potentially as disastrous as the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It would also send oil prices, already through the roof, into orbit.

But the talk has started again. Negotiations with Iran - and sanctions against it - have not stopped it enriching uranium, which its critics say is being done to make a bomb.

In one of his first acts after he secured the Democratic nomination for president of the US, Senator Barack Obama told Aipac, America's most powerful pro-Israel lobby, that he would do everything in his power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

He repeated the word "everything" several times. Even allowing for the fact that he was also trying to dispel the impression that he was soft on Iran, it was strong language.

End of term

The American National Intelligence Estimate that was published in December 2007 was more nuanced than some of the headlines suggested.

It had only "moderate confidence" that Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program by the summer of 2007, and said "we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons".

Israel, among others, has never accepted that Iran has stopped trying to build them. The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating

Ehud Olmert
Nuclear crisis refuses to go quiet
Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue



Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister, has been in Washington this week.

The day before Senator Obama addressed Aipac, Mr Olmert used some of his toughest public language yet about Iran to the same audience.

"The international community has a duty and responsibility to clarify to Iran, through drastic measures, that the repercussions of their continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will be devastating," he said.

The speculation is that President George W Bush and Prime Minister Olmert want to remove what they believe is a clear and present danger before they face their own political oblivion.

Mr Bush is finishing his time at the White House still dogged by the disaster of Iraq - and Mr Olmert faces disgrace over allegations of corruption.

'Dangerous conflict'

The talk has alarmed, among others, the former German Foreign Minister, Joshka Fischer.

Germany has, with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, taken the lead in talks with Iran about its nuclear plans. Iran must understand that without a diplomatic solution in the coming months, a dangerous military conflict is very likely to erupt

Joshka Fischer
Former German FM

He wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz this week that Messrs Bush and Olmert seem to have been planning to end the Iranian nuclear programme "by military, rather than by diplomatic means".

Mr Fischer fears that the Middle East is drifting towards a new great confrontation in 2008.

"Iran must understand that without a diplomatic solution in the coming months, a dangerous military conflict is very likely to erupt. It is high time for serious negotiations to begin," he said.

Scenario

One scenario being discussed by Israeli analysts is that there could be an attack, by Israel or by the Americans, after the US election in November and before the new president is inaugurated in January, with the tacit consent of the incoming president.

That might be easier if it is Senator Obama's Republican rival John McCain.

During the campaign for his party's nomination, he once sang "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beachboys' classic Barbara Ann.

In a less jocular moment, he said that the only thing worse than attacking Iran would be to allow it to have nuclear weapons.

Some pro-Israeli US analysts are arguing that Iran's response to an attack would not be as harsh as many have predicted.

This week Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei repeated that Iran did not want nuclear weapons. But he said it would continue to develop nuclear energy for daily life.

Those who have made their minds up about Iran are more likely to listen to Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has once again predicted Israel's doom.

None of this means an attack on Iran is coming. But it is being discussed, and that is significant.

[StarnetGypsy]

Anyone notice how these two articles helped contribute to the price of crude jumping to a record high , and the single highest increase ($12) in one day?

lol .. forget about speculators driving the price up, the Whitehouse is doing it

[truthseeka]

BAGHDAD: Iraq's negotiations with the United States on a security agreement governing America's long-term involvement in the country are at an impasse because America's demands infringe Iraq's sovereignty, the country's prime minister said Friday.

The comments were the first by the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, in which he explicitly stated there is distance between the United States and the Iraqi government in the negotiations on the security agreement, which would authorize American forces and operations after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of the year.

In a meeting with newspaper editors in Jordan, Maliki said the current draft of the agreement was unacceptable. "The American version of the agreement infringes hugely on the sovereignty of Iraq and this is something that we cannot ever accept," he said.

Many of Maliki's concerns have been voiced publicly over the last several weeks by prominent Shiite politicians in Iraq, some of them from his own Dawa Party.

However, this is the first time that the prime minister has raised the same points.


Maliki said there were four areas in which proposed versions of the agreement failed to give sufficient deference to Iraqi sovereignty.

"Iraq rejects Washington's insistence on granting their forces immunity from Iraqi laws and courts," he said. "We reject Washington's demand to have a free hand in undertaking military operations without cooperation with the Iraqi government." He added: "We cannot give permission to the American forces independent right to arrest Iraqis or execute operations against terrorism. We cannot allow them to use the Iraqi skies and waters at all times."

The question of immunity for American contractors accused of killing a number of Iraqi civilians unprovoked is a particularly sensitive point with Iraqis, who want to be able to bring wrongdoers to trial in Iraqi courts.

Maliki's tone Friday had a somewhat harsher tone than similar comments made on Thursday in Jordan after meeting with King Abdullah.

Maliki emphasized that talks with the United States negotiators were ongoing and that there were many possible ways to proceed.

"There is no agreement yet; there are many drafts, many thoughts," he said in comments to the press that were broadcast on Radio Sawa, an Iraqi network. "But we have different visions."

Although he made clear that there were deep disagreements between the United States and Iraq, he also said the talks were far from over.

"The important thing is that the conversation between us and the United States is still going on but there are many disagreements and different visions between us but we continue in our discussions," he said.

He added that the agreement was "not close" to being signed.

Earlier this week, President George W. Bush expressed confidence that his administration would reach a new agreement with Iraq. The negotiations face opposition in Congress and, increasingly, in Iraq. Iran's supreme leader has also warned Maliki not to ratify an agreement.

Within Iraq, although different Iraqi political factions hold varying views - Sunnis and Kurds, for instance are more open to an agreement, while some of the Shiite factions, which are closer to Iran, are more critical of it - they all emphasize the importance of Iraq's sovereign rights

Is Iraq turning into a US colony?

so what is about the Puke CNN ABC NBC CBS and all Jew owned Newmedia in America was feeding us all along before this war started what was this war About ?

Weapon of Mas Destruction ? never found
Saddam was a dictator ? so is 99.99 of all 3rd world nations
iraq had any thing to do with 911? non of the 19 hijackers was iraqi
Bring democracy and freedom to the iraqis ? more than 1 million iraqi civilians died and 3 million became refugees and call that freedom ?

or Are the Americans People are so Stupid that they would Expect Jewish owned News Media and News Tv statiosn to tell the americans in their face
we went to iraq to make Israel safer ? and get closer to greater israel ?

when we ever going to awake from this slumber ?

[StarnetGypsy]

From GlobalPolicy.org:

(June 9, 2006)
Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari has requested that the Security Council extend the mandate of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq, due for review in June. In a letter addressed to the President of the Council, Zebari thanked the MNF for its assistance in “providing security and stability in Iraq.” Under Resolution 1637 (2005), the UN Security Council can terminate the force’s mandate at any time if Iraq’s government asks it to do so.

Full Article - Letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Iraq to the United Nations - UN Security Council Global - Policy Forum

(June 9, 2008)
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sought to reassure Iran over a planned security pact with Washington on Sunday, vowing that Iraq would never be used as a platform to attack the Islamic Republic. "We will not allow Iraq to become a platform for harming the security of Iran and neighbors," Maliki said after a late-night meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Tehran.

Full Article - Maliki Vows Deal With US Will Not Be Used Against Iranian Neighbors - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

al-Maliki met recently with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who is the Supreme Leader of Iran. Pretty clear from the footage that al-Maliki is working closely with the Ayatollah to maintain a strong relationship with Iran. From a political standpoint it makes perfectly good sense since they're neighbors, not to mention al-Maliki has been pushing a Shiite agenda and overruling his parliamentary ministers.

Seems to me he's on course with Iran in attempting to eventually form a government similar to Iran's, in that it has a parliament, but is chiefly ruled by the religious leaders (Ayatollahs & Mullas). I've felt this was inevitable since the beginning of the war ... Islam is the core of their society.

And now the Bush/Cheney administration is pushing what is apparently unreasonable demands that would give the US full autonomy. Not sure why since we're not told much, but I'd imagine the thrust would be to allow the US an extended military presence in the region, similar to our forces in South Korea, so that we could attack Iran/Syria at any given moment?

The longer this draws out without resolution, the more it's going to effect our presidential election process. Bad, very bad, in that it's giving another country a controlling influence in our political process. I can't imagine the Whitehouse pressing this at this time, unless they think it will benefit their preferred presidential candidate, can you Seeka?

On the other hand, it may backfire and play right into the hands of Obama's intended policy of negotiating a withdrawal.

At any rate, this is all over my head, but I'm going to watch it, intently, because it could be the precursor to a wider war. pfftt! Especially if Ehud Olmert, the Israeli PM, launches a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear reactors ....

[truthseeka]

Another Bad Deal for Baghdad

just remember this war was sold as a lie to the american people
the american people who sit in front of their jew owned cnn and ABC and NBC
will never get from jewish owned Network the real story for simple reason
israels security comes in 1st and 2nd and 3rdt for all all zealous zionist jewish
Media Moguls whos Israels Safety , Security and Future Aspirations are
the Hear and Soul of Every zionist Jew around the Globe ..............


By KARL E. MEYER
Published: June 17, 2008
WITH only perfunctory debate, the Bush administration is pressuring a divided Iraqi government to approve a security agreement that could haunt Washington’s relations with Baghdad for years to come. The “strategic alliance” that President Bush is proposing eerily resembles, in spirit and in letter, a failed 1930 treaty between Britain and Iraq that prompted a nationalist eruption in Baghdad, a pro-Nazi military coup and a pogrom that foreshadowed the elimination of Baghdad’s ancient Jewish community.

The outline of the deal, which has not been made public, has been described by a high-level Iraqi insider, Ali A. Allawi, a moderate Shiite who was a post-invasion finance minister. Writing this month in The Independent of London, Mr. Allawi noted a disturbing parallel between the proposed alliance between the United States and Iraq and the earlier treaty that formally ended Iraq’s post-World War I status as a British mandate.

“The treaty gave Britain military and economic privileges in exchange for Britain’s promise to end the mandate over the country,” Mr. Allawi wrote. “The treaty was ratified by a docile Iraqi Parliament but was bitterly resented by nationalists. Iraq’s dependency on Britain poisoned Iraqi politics for the next quarter-century. Riots, civil disturbances, uprisings and coups were all features of Iraq’s political landscape, prompted in no small measure by the bitter disputations over the treaty with Britain.”

Under the 1930 pact, Iraq had to consult Britain on security issues and allow it the use of Iraqi airports, ports, railways and rivers. Two major military bases were leased to the British, who were empowered to station their forces throughout Iraq. British personnel were granted immunity from local prosecution.

Almost 80 years later, the Bush administration seeks a startlingly similar arrangement. While not formally a treaty (having been carefully crafted to avoid the requirement of Senate ratification), the wide-ranging pact that the United States proposes nearly replicates the 1930 accord.

According to press reports based on leaks from the Iraqi Parliament, the pact envisions giving the Americans rights to as many as 58 military bases and control of Iraqi airspace.

It would grant immunity from Iraqi laws to American military personnel. And it would empower American officials to detain suspected terrorists without the approval of Iraqi authorities.

The agreement, which Washington is pushing Baghdad to sign by July 31, would replace the United Nations mandate that now authorizes the American occupation. Iraq would be freed from Security Council sanctions and would benefit from continued American military and economic aid. Iraq could also receive as much as $50 billion in blocked assets, dating back to the first gulf war, that are now held by the United States.

The 1930 treaty was followed by Iraqi independence and then more than a score of coups, countercoups, massacres and rebellions. Many Iraqis objected to British collusion with the ruling Sunni elite, and protested the use of British warplanes to suppress tribal uprisings. The legal immunity given to British forces generated even more resentment, a history detailed by Elie Kedourie, a British scholar born in Baghdad.

The nationalist uprising culminated in an Axis-backed putsch in April 1941, when Iraqi colonels exploited these grievances to seize power bloodlessly. Following the only pro-German coup in the wartime Middle East, British forces rushed to Baghdad to oust the leaders, who fled as Allied troops approached.

To preserve the fiction that Iraq’s liberation was indigenous, however, the British held back from crossing the Tigris and entering downtown Baghdad. That May, absent any occupying authority, two days of looting and rioting broke out as the capital’s Jews were celebrating the festival of Shavuot, while the British troops looked on. This pogrom, called the farhud, claimed hundreds of lives and presaged the wholesale destruction after 1948 of the largest and oldest Jewish community in the Arab Middle East.

After its 1930 treaty with Iraq, Britain proved unable to ensure order during the decade of nationalist tumult that followed. Rarely has the proverb about repeating history been more vividly signaled.