Bush-Maliki Proposed Agreement: Blatant Imperialistic Colonialism
I've written about the Bush-Maliki long term security agreement many times but here and here are a couple of examples.
It is an agreement whose main goal is to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely and make the agreement fait accompli by trying to bypass Congress, the Iraqi parliament which is against it, and the wishes of the majority of the Iraq and American people.
McClatchy news reported: "Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
"Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
" 'The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation,' said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. 'We were occupied by order of the Security Council,' he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. 'But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far.'
"Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.
" 'It would impair Iraqi sovereignty,' said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. 'The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.'
This is absolutely blatant imperial colonialism by the Bush administration.
"Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable.
"Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have 'no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true.'
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq."
The conclusion of my January posting is just as valid today: "Democrats in Congress must have the backbone to block this maneuver by a warmongering, anti-Constitution, lying president or the Democratic candidate who is the eventual next president must not be afraid to overturn this dangerous non-binding treaty that attempts to keep the United States stuck in a quagmire against the wishes and demands of the majority of the American and Iraqi people.
"This alarming pact is being negotiated by two law breaking tyrants, one Iraqi and one American; the American, an anti-Constitution, theocratic, imperialist, and possibly lunatic US president. Blocking and/or overturning such a flawed treaty would be a positive, decisive, moral, and imperative action that the world would support and applaud."
Time to put impeachment back on the table.
It is an agreement whose main goal is to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely and make the agreement fait accompli by trying to bypass Congress, the Iraqi parliament which is against it, and the wishes of the majority of the Iraq and American people.
McClatchy news reported: "Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.
"Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.
" 'The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation,' said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. 'We were occupied by order of the Security Council,' he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. 'But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far.'
"Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.
" 'It would impair Iraqi sovereignty,' said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. 'The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq... if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.'
This is absolutely blatant imperial colonialism by the Bush administration.
"Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable.
"Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have 'no doubt that the Americans' dreams will not come true.'
"Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn't respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make "absolutely clear" that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq."
The conclusion of my January posting is just as valid today: "Democrats in Congress must have the backbone to block this maneuver by a warmongering, anti-Constitution, lying president or the Democratic candidate who is the eventual next president must not be afraid to overturn this dangerous non-binding treaty that attempts to keep the United States stuck in a quagmire against the wishes and demands of the majority of the American and Iraqi people.
"This alarming pact is being negotiated by two law breaking tyrants, one Iraqi and one American; the American, an anti-Constitution, theocratic, imperialist, and possibly lunatic US president. Blocking and/or overturning such a flawed treaty would be a positive, decisive, moral, and imperative action that the world would support and applaud."
Time to put impeachment back on the table.
Comments