US "colony" Iraq ~ updates

[Shadow]

US Colony Iraq Subsidizes Military-Industrial Fraud
Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Corporate-government fraud has gotten a major boost ever since Iraq became the latest colony of the failing American Empire.

“Iraq is fast becoming one of the United States’ top customers for military sales,” reports USA Today in an article called “Iraqis buy billions in U.S. arms.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/
2008-08-18-iraqtanks_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

“Since January 2007, Iraq has spent $3.1 billion on U.S. weapons. That number looks likely to grow exponentially as Iraq uses its vast unspent reserves of petrodollars to develop its army into a force capable of defending its borders against hostile neighbors.

“In the past two months alone, the Pentagon has alerted Congress of a possible $8.7 billion worth of additional military sales to Iraq, for everything from lightweight attack helicopters to armored ambulances to binoculars.”

This is a choice fraud in that so-called “defense” contractors can sell their over-priced and pointless weapons to Iraq which has since become literally a “captive market”.

USA Today also reports that Iraq’s Ministry of Defense “is considering buying 140 of the United States’ most advanced tanks, at approximately $4 million to $5 million per tank, plus hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of support equipment to go along with the tanks.”

Can Pentagon fraud get any sweeter than that?

source: http://rinf.com/alt-news/contributions/us-colony-iraq-subsidizes-military-industrial-fraud/4426/

 

[Shadow]

Iraq wants to put torturers on trial
Tuesday, August 19th, 2008

Iraq’s human rights ministry says wants torturers not to be included on amnesty lists.

BAGHDAD - Iraq’s human rights ministry says it wants to put on trial torturers who benefit from complete immunity despite proven cases of abuse in Iraqi prisons.”We call on the government and judicial authorities to ensure the protection of prisoners, to punish torturers and not to include them on amnesty lists,” said Saad Sultan, head of the ministry’s prisons supervision service.

Iraq, which on Sunday announced it has ratified the UN convention against torture, has no law against the practice.

“It’s true that there is no specific law but they (torturers) could be charged for voluntary blows and injuries,” the senior official said late Monday.

He said 121 “proven cases” of detainees — including three women — being tortured had been unearthed in 2007. Two-thirds of them were in interior ministry facilities and the rest in centres run by the defence ministry.

“The culprits are being investigated but this type of case takes time,” said Sultan, without reporting any arrests.

“We don’t have statistics for previous years but there were definitely hundreds of cases of torture in 2004 and 2005, before the number started to decline in 2006,” he said.

Sultan’s supervision team was set up in 2006 with a team of 82 investigators. Funded by the European Union, they were trained in Germany and by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

It started work in earnest in 2007.


from Here:
http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/iraq-wants-to-put-torturers-on-trial/4412/

Hope this will include the US torturers too. They tortured Iraqis and it makes sense that they should pay for the crime under Iraqi law too. But they most likely won't.

 

[GenSeneca]

US Colony Iraq Subsidizes Military-Industrial Fraud
Thursday, August 21st, 2008

Corporate-government fraud has gotten a major boost ever since Iraq became the latest colony of the failing American Empire.

“Iraq is fast becoming one of the United States’ top customers for military sales,” reports USA Today in an article called “Iraqis buy billions in U.S. arms.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/
2008-08-18-iraqtanks_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

“Since January 2007, Iraq has spent $3.1 billion on U.S. weapons. That number looks likely to grow exponentially as Iraq uses its vast unspent reserves of petrodollars to develop its army into a force capable of defending its borders against hostile neighbors.

“In the past two months alone, the Pentagon has alerted Congress of a possible $8.7 billion worth of additional military sales to Iraq, for everything from lightweight attack helicopters to armored ambulances to binoculars.”

This is a choice fraud in that so-called “defense” contractors can sell their over-priced and pointless weapons to Iraq which has since become literally a “captive market”.

USA Today also reports that Iraq’s Ministry of Defense “is considering buying 140 of the United States’ most advanced tanks, at approximately $4 million to $5 million per tank, plus hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of support equipment to go along with the tanks.”

Can Pentagon fraud get any sweeter than that?

source: http://rinf.com/alt-news/contributions/us-colony-iraq-subsidizes-military-industrial-fraud/4426/

We spend billions upon billions buying their oil - as opposed to just stealing it - and Iraq is spending that money to buy things from the US... That is a sweet deal. Win, Win for both countries.

 

[GenSeneca]

Hope this will include the US torturers too. They tortured Iraqis and it makes sense that they should pay for the crime under Iraqi law too. But they most likely won't.

I don't know why... the Americans have been tried in American courts already.

 

[Libsmasher]

"Colony"? "Empire"?

Is there ANY lib here who can be taken seriously?

 

[Shadow]

"Colony"? "Empire"?

Is there ANY lib here who can be taken seriously?

absolutely !! They have a lot more credibility & awareness than the delusional , warmongering neo cons who live in the world of human slaughter, Torture, theft , greed ,but also denial

 

[Libsmasher]

absolutely !! They have a lot more credibility & awareness than the delusional , warmongering neo cons who live in the world of human slaughter, Torture, theft , greed ,but also denial

"Colony"!! HAR HAR HAR HEE HEE! If nothing else, these "neocon" eruptions are good for a giggle!

 

[Shadow]

"Colony"!! HAR HAR HAR HEE HEE! If nothing else, these "neocon" eruptions are good for a giggle!

takes so LITTLE to amuse those pea brain neo con minds. No wonder the rest of the world "percieves" them as intellectually challenged.

One can only pity the poor sods. They "know not what they do".


HOw sad that they give the rest of the US population a bad name.

Once again, a neo con tries to derail a topic that they don't want to address because it represents their failure. and destruction.

*******

seems that Iraq and the US are coming closer to some kind of "deal". this should be interesting. wonder what Iraq will get out of it.

 

[Libsmasher]

takes so LITTLE to amuse those pea brain neo con minds. No wonder the rest of the world "percieves" them as intellectually challenged.

The REAL neocons are also probably amused at all that appeasers and leftwing fruit cakes give them credit for.

 

[Shadow]

The REAL neocons are also probably amused at all that appeasers and leftwing fruit cakes give them credit for.

to be sure. But then they are probably amused at how many they have slaughtered in a far off nation that posed NO threat to them. .... They are probably also amused when they see the photos of the US torture too. After all, it is how they empower themselves to themselves.

Not very discriminating as far as what they find humorous.

 

[Libsmasher]

to be sure. But then they are probably amused at how many they have slaughtered in a far off nation that posed NO threat to them. .... They are probably also amused when they see the photos of the US torture too. After all, it is how they empower themselves to themselves.

Not very discriminating as far as what they find humorous.

Let's look at your illogic. Complete the following paragraphs with your best arguments:

1. "That a regime is far off necessarily means you shouldn't engage in war with it."

2. "You necessarily should not engage in war with a nation that poses you no threat."

Good luck!

 

[Shadow]

Remember , foks, when bush stated that : when /if the Iraqis ask us to leave , we will??? Well, Iraq has not only "asked", it is not insisting. Will the hypocritical US oblige them??

****

Iraq, U.S. disagree on timetable for troop withdrawal


Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday that all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by 2011 in a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which insists the timing for troop departure would be based on conditions on the ground.

By Leila Fadel

McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday that all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by 2011 and there would be no security agreement between the United States and Iraq without an unconditional timetable for withdrawal. This was a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which insists the timing for troop departure would be based on conditions on the ground.

"No pact or an agreement should be set without being based on full sovereignty, national common interests, and no foreign soldier should remain on Iraqi land, and there should be a specific deadline and it should not be open," Maliki told a meeting of tribal leaders in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

His comments appeared to be an attempt to extract further concessions from U.S. officials, less than a week after both sides said they had agreed to remove all U.S. combat troops by the end of 2011, if the security situation remained relatively stable, but leave other U.S. forces in place. The U.S. plan is to leave as many as 40,000 troops to continue to assist Iraq in training, logistics and intelligence for an undefined period.

"There is an agreement actually reached, reached between the two parties on a fixed date, which is the end of 2011, to end any foreign presence on Iraqi soil," Maliki said.

But the White House disputed Maliki's statement and made clear the two countries are still at odds over the terms of a U.S. withdrawal.

"Any decisions on troops will be based on conditions on the ground in Iraq," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in Crawford, Texas, where President Bush is vacationing. "That has always been our position. It continues to be our position."

Fratto denied Maliki's assertion that an agreement has been reached mandating that all foreign forces be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

"An agreement has not been signed," he said. "There is no agreement until there's an agreement signed. There are discussions that continue in Baghdad."

Maliki also said the dispute has not been resolved over immunity for U.S. troops and contractors when they are off their bases. He said this was one of the most divisive issues under negotiation.

"We can't neglect our sons by giving an open immunity for anyone whether he is Iraqi or a foreigner," he said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made a surprise visit to Baghdad last week in an effort to push the process forward. Her long meeting with Maliki ended with no concrete solution, his adviser told McClatchy.

Maliki's remarks are likely to complicate the debate in the U.S. presidential campaign over how best to conduct an American military pullout from Iraq. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has opposed a firm timeline for withdrawal but suggested troops be out of Iraq by 2013. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, has called for U.S. combat troops to leave by mid-2010.

Information from Seattle Times news services

 

[BigRob]

Remember , foks, when bush stated that : when /if the Iraqis ask us to leave , we will??? Well, Iraq has not only "asked", it is not insisting. Will the hypocritical US oblige them??

****

Iraq, U.S. disagree on timetable for troop withdrawal


Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Monday that all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by 2011 in a direct challenge to the Bush administration, which insists the timing for troop departure would be based on conditions on the ground.

Just to make you aware, most of the Iraqi Parliament agrees with the US that it should be based on conditions on the ground. Maliki also sends signals that he agrees with this in principle as well behind the scenes.

 

[Shadow]

Is Iraq a Sovereign and Independent Colony?
by Jacob G. Hornberger

One cannot help but be amused over the negotiations taking place between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki over how long U.S. troops will be permitted to stay in Iraq and whether occupation troops will be subject to Iraqi law in the interim.

My question is:Why is this something that even needs to be negotiated? I thought that Iraq was now a sovereign and independent country. Isn’t that what President Bush and U.S. officials have been telling us ever since U.S. troops invaded and occupied Iraq some six years ago?

Well, if Iraq really is a sovereign and independent country, then why does it have to negotiate anything with the United States, including an exit date for U.S. troops and how criminal offenses committed by U.S. troops in Iraq are going to be handled? Why can’t Iraq simply tell the U.S. government when it is going to leave Iraq and how the actions of its troops are going to be handled as long as they are in Iraq? As a sovereign and independent country, why does Iraq need consent or approval from the U.S. government for how things operate within Iraq? Does the U.S. government need the consent and approval of foreign regimes before taking actions here within the United States?

The negotiations between President Bush and Iraq belie the truth:President Bush and U.S. officials consider Iraq to be a conquered nation and a colony now with the U.S. Empire. That’s why the new U.S. Embassy is slated to be the largest of its kind in the world—the size of Vatican City. It’s also why Bush’s forces have been building permanent military bases during their occupation of the country.

Bush’s problem, however, is that Iraqi officials don’t consider themselves to be a vassal nation within the U.S. Empire . In fact, as we here at FFF have been pointing out for years, the Bush invasion, with the aid of clever political maneuvering by Islamic radical Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, succeeded in installing a radical Islamic regime into power in Iraq. Such a regime, which has even aligned itself with Bush’s arch-enemy Iran, isn’t likely to accede to Bush’s wish for a permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq, especially given that Iraqi officials know that Bush will soon find himself without political power clearing brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Source:http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-08-26.asp

 

[Libsmasher]

Is Iraq a Sovereign and Independent Colony?
by Jacob G. Hornberger

One cannot help but be amused over the negotiations taking place between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki over how long U.S. troops will be permitted to stay in Iraq and whether occupation troops will be subject to Iraqi law in the interim.

My question is:Why is this something that even needs to be negotiated? I thought that Iraq was now a sovereign and independent country. Isn’t that what President Bush and U.S. officials have been telling us ever since U.S. troops invaded and occupied Iraq some six years ago?

Well, if Iraq really is a sovereign and independent country, then why does it have to negotiate anything with the United States, including an exit date for U.S. troops and how criminal offenses committed by U.S. troops in Iraq are going to be handled? Why can’t Iraq simply tell the U.S. government when it is going to leave Iraq and how the actions of its troops are going to be handled as long as they are in Iraq? As a sovereign and independent country, why does Iraq need consent or approval from the U.S. government for how things operate within Iraq? Does the U.S. government need the consent and approval of foreign regimes before taking actions here within the United States?

The negotiations between President Bush and Iraq belie the truth:President Bush and U.S. officials consider Iraq to be a conquered nation and a colony now with the U.S. Empire. That’s why the new U.S. Embassy is slated to be the largest of its kind in the world—the size of Vatican City. It’s also why Bush’s forces have been building permanent military bases during their occupation of the country.

Bush’s problem, however, is that Iraqi officials don’t consider themselves to be a vassal nation within the U.S. Empire . In fact, as we here at FFF have been pointing out for years, the Bush invasion, with the aid of clever political maneuvering by Islamic radical Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, succeeded in installing a radical Islamic regime into power in Iraq. Such a regime, which has even aligned itself with Bush’s arch-enemy Iran, isn’t likely to accede to Bush’s wish for a permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq, especially given that Iraqi officials know that Bush will soon find himself without political power clearing brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Source:http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-08-26.asp

Iraq is transitioning, and things are in a gray area. Is that too much for your black-or-white brain to grasp?