Monday, October 24, 2011
Local
Monday, October 24, 2011

CNMI hails Obama's decision to bring home troops from Iraq

By Haidee V. Eugenio
Reporter

President Barack Obama's announcement on Saturday in Washington, D.C. that virtually all U.S. troops will come home from Iraq by the end of the year is welcome news to many in the CNMI, which has lost 14 sons and daughters in military service since the war against terror started in 2003.

“After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over,” Obama said in his weekly address.

Obama said as the U.S. removes the last of its troops from Iraq, it is also beginning to bring troops home from Afghanistan.

Janine Camacho, 24, wishes that her husband, Army Sgt. Billy Joe Camacho, comes home for Christmas.

Sgt. Camacho was deployed to Iraq two years ago, and is currently stationed in Afghanistan for one year starting in April this year.

“I want him to come home because it's dangerous out there, but I know he has to do what he has to do. Everyone wants their loved ones home but they have a mission to do,” Mrs. Camacho told Saipan Tribune yesterday. They got married in 2007.

Mrs. Camacho said the CNMI welcomes home the troops, and hopes that people will continue to pray for the safety of those who will still be in Afghanistan and other areas outside the U.S.

The war in Iraq claimed the lives of more than 4,400 American lives, and has cost the U.S. Department of Defense nearly $757 billion for military operations over the past decade.

Delegate Gregorio Kilili Sablan (Ind-MP) said the president's decision will put an end to an enormous drain on the nation's financial resources.

“We can no longer afford to spend so much overseas, when our needs here at home are so great,” Sablan said in a statement in the wake of Obama's address.

Sablan said “those of us with loved ones, family members, and friends still in Iraq are glad and grateful that the President has made the decision that all our troops will be home for the holidays.”

“The Northern Mariana Islands lost 14 of our sons and daughters in military service, since the Iraq War began in 2003. We will always mourn their loss and honor their service. Now, we can be grateful that no more of our brave soldiers will be at risk in Iraq, even as we continue to pray for those who remain at war in Afghanistan,” he said.

Ruth Coleman, former executive officer of the CNMI Veterans Affairs Office, said yesterday that Obama's announcement is “good news” for the CNMI, and that the sacrifices made by troops from the CNMI and their families have been “worth it.”

“Our troops did not die in vain. Men and women who served and are serving sacrificed so much so that there will be peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. We honor all their sacrifices,” Coleman said.

Press secretary Angel Demapan said yesterday that the Fitial administration is “very much grateful that the President has made this decision.”

“This will certainly be a wonderful gift to families in the coming holiday season. Already, our country has expended an enormous amount of money overseas, but even greater than the value of cash, we have lost too many of our beloved sons and daughters. Right here at home, we have already laid to rest 14 of our own heroes,” Demapan said.

He said although the administration can draw a sense of reprieve from this latest announcement, it joins many other families whose loved ones are serving in Afghanistan and other places as they, too, await the day that they will hear a similar decision to draw down troops from there.

“To the families of our soldiers, every single day, we are honored and humbled by the sacrifice that our service members make in the name of our freedom and our country. Because of their valor and determination to preserve liberty and justice, each of us is able to sleep each night and wake up the next day with freedom on our side. As your loved ones currently in Iraq begin the process of winding down and completing their operation, we shall continue to pray that they be kept out of harm's way and that they return home to their families safely,” he said.

House floor leader George Camacho (Ind-Saipan), for his part, said he wishes the troops a safe and speedy return home.

“And we are forever grateful for the work they do,” he added.

Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo, in a statement, said “President Obama fulfilled a promise to America that he would responsibly end the war in Iraq.

“As we look forward to the return of our troops from Iraq, we must ensure that they have health care and support services in the coming years,” she said.

Bordallo said she will continue to work with the Obama administration and her colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee “to ensure that our brave men and women return home to communities that will be able to support them with jobs and the health care services they deserve.”

“I am grateful for the efforts of our men and women in uniform who helped bring down a tyrant and gave the people of Iraq a chance for freedom and democracy,” she added.

Obama's announcement also came after talks that might have allowed a continued major military presence broke down amid disputes about whether U.S. troops would be immune to prosecution by Iraqi authorities, CNN reported.

“The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their head held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in support for our troops,” Obama said.

His decision also comes in the wake of the death of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya.

Obama said last year, he announced the end of combat mission in Iraq. He said the U.S. has already removed more than 100,000 troops,and Iraqi forces have taken full responsibility for the security of their own country.

He said when he took office, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and an increasing number of our troops will continue to come home,” he added.

"Already, our country has expended an enormous amount of money overseas"

Yeah, in other words the US is irreversibly bankrupt, thats why they are being pulled out :)

Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that the money wasted on the Iraq war could have been used to fix America’s Social Security problem for half a century.

The true cost of war (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan)

The World will now be centered on the EU, the suckers in the US have impoverished there Sheeple nation.

new tour of duty....africa
good riddance

As long as Iraq keeps selling oil in USD - corporate America keeps on winning. Really, at the end of the day, that's it. You could think of it as indirect colonization. Stealing the spoils without actually stealing them.

Its not what they tell you that is important, its what they don't tell you


Exclusive: U.S. Blocks Oversight of Its Mercenary Army in Iraq


By January 2012, the State Department will do something it’s never done before: command a mercenary army the size of a heavy combat brigade. That’s the plan to provide security for its diplomats in Iraq once the U.S. military withdraws. And no one outside State knows anything more, as the department has gone to war with its independent government watchdog to keep its plan a secret.

Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), is essentially in the dark about one of the most complex and dangerous endeavors the State Department has ever undertaken, one with huge implications for the future of the United States in Iraq. “Our audit of the program is making no progress,” Bowen tells Danger Room.

For months, Bowen’s team has tried to get basic information out of the State Department about how it will command its assembled army of about 5,500 private security contractors. How many State contracting officials will oversee how many hired guns? What are the rules of engagement for the guards? What’s the system for reporting a security danger, and for directing the guards’ response?

And for months, the State Department’s management chief, former Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, has given Bowen a clear response: That’s not your jurisdiction. You just deal with reconstruction, not security. Never mind that Bowen has audited over $1.2 billion worth of security contracts over seven years.

“Apparently, Ambassador Kennedy doesn’t want us doing the oversight that we believe is necessary and properly within our jurisdiction,” Bowen says. “That hard truth is holding up work on important programs and contracts at a critical moment in the Iraq transition.”

This isn’t an idle concern or a typical bureaucratic tussle. The State Department has hired private security for its diplomats in war zones for the better part of a decade. Poor control of them caused one of the biggest debacles of the Iraq war: the September 2007 shooting incident in Nisour Square, where Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians. Now roughly double those guards from the forces on duty now, and you’ll understand the scope of what State is planning once the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq at the end of this year.


“They have no experience running a private army,” says Ramzy Mardini, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War who just returned from a weeks-long trip to Iraq. “I don’t think the State Department even has a good sense of what it’s taking on. The U.S. military is concerned about it as well.”

So far, the Department has awarded three security contracts for Iraq worth nearly $2.9 billion over five years. Bowen can’t even say for sure how much the department actually intends to spend on mercs in total. State won’t let it see those totals.

About as much information as the department has disclosed about its incipient private army comes from a little-noticed Senate hearing in February. There, the top U.S. military and civilian officials in Iraq said that they’d station the hired guard force at Basra, Irbil, Mosul and Kirkuk, with the majority — over 3,000 — protecting the mega-embassy in Baghdad. They’ll ferry diplomats around in armored convoys and a State-run helicopter fleet, the first in the department’s history.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/iraq-merc-army/

S.A.M.

So far, the Department has awarded three security contracts for Iraq worth nearly $2.9 billion over five years. Bowen can’t even say for sure how much the department actually intends to spend on mercs in total. State won’t let it see those totals.


So if the US military isn't going to be given immunity by the Iraq government and that is one reason they are leaving then what will happen with the mercenaries legal position if something happens with them? Seems that this idea of having American mercenaries staying there will become a very big problem if they get involved with more killings or other underhanded deeds. :shrug:

Why is the USA in Iraq? The only answer is oil. There's just nothing else of value there. The USA will do whatever it thinks it can so as to see that Iraqi oil is sold in USD. If that means keeping 5500 mercs there, then so be it. If it means putting puppet after puppet in charge, then so be it. Until the USA squeezes as much out of that country as it can, it isn't going anywhere in a hurry. Not really anyway.

You did see the thread on Americans who could barely pick a few tomatoes before collapsing in total and utterly complete exhaustion. We're talking 3 hours tops. We need that sweet Iraqi oil, how else are we going to pay for all the stuff? You know, the stuff. The stuff from China, from Mexico, wherever. We need all that stuff. So, mercs it'll be.

Total BS
Oil is sold in the international market so it doesn't matter WHO Iraq sells oil to.

As to where we actually get our oil:

YTD in Thousand Barrels per day

US own production ~5,800

Imports

CANADA 2,121
SAUDI ARABIA 1,155
MEXICO 1,110
VENEZUELA 925
NIGERIA 864

So for just the top 5 importers plus our own production, that's 10,075 thousand barrels per day.

YTD from Iraq is 458 thousand

Or 4 %

So no, that is NOT why we are in Iraq.

But good try.

Arthur


http://205.254.135.24/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Total BS
Oil is sold in the international market so it doesn't matter WHO Iraq sells oil to.

As to where we actually get our oil:

YTD in Thousand Barrels per day

US own production ~5,800

Imports

CANADA 2,121
SAUDI ARABIA 1,155
MEXICO 1,110
VENEZUELA 925
NIGERIA 864

So for just the top 5 importers plus our own production, that's 10,075 thousand barrels per day.

YTD from Iraq is 458 thousand

Or 4 %

So no, that is NOT why we are in Iraq.

But good try.

Arthur


http://205.254.135.24/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.htmlI'm not disagreeing WHO it is sold too. I said what matters is what it's denominated IN. Namely USD.

We print USD. This means they sell their oil, we get to print more USD.


Is there a fault in that logic?
:shrug:


Let me see here, Iraq potentially has the world's largest proven oil reserves, with more than 350 billion barrels (at least according to them) and the entire world's economy is utterly dependent on oil, but, the USA invaded Iraq and this had NOTHING to do with their oil reserves? Then you quote their bpb following a decade of sanctions and another decade of war? Come on, that's such a thinly veiled disingenuous comparison as to make me wonder why on earth you'd post it?

Why did we invade Iraq? Was it ALL just to appease the MIC? If so, that's even more of a worry.

Its not what they tell you that is important, its what they don't tell you


Exclusive: U.S. Blocks Oversight of Its Mercenary Army in Iraq...

Oh noes, we are guarding our diplomats... the horror...

I'm not disagreeing WHO it is sold too. I said what matters is what it's denominated IN. Namely USD.

We print USD. This means they sell their oil, we get to print more USD.


Is there a fault in that logic?
:shrug:


Yes, there is no logic at all in that statement.
The denomination it is sold in doesn't have any effect on our money supply.

Even if you thought so, the amount of oil bought and sold each day is relatively steady, so there would STILL be no impact on money supply, it's not like after buying the oil in USD the dollars are burnt. Indeed they just move from one electronic ledger to another ledger in a big bank somewhere.


Let me see here, Iraq potentially has the world's largest proven oil reserves, with more than 350 billion barrels (at least according to them) and the entire world's economy is utterly dependent on oil, but, the USA invaded Iraq and this had NOTHING to do with their oil reserves?

Well of course it does have something to do with their oil reserves.
It gave the thug running the country enough money to do pretty much what he wanted, including supporting international terrorism and starting a few regional wars that ended in lots of people being killed.

What it wasn't about was stealing Iraqi oil.


Then you quote their bpb following a decade of sanctions and another decade of war? Come on, that's such a thinly veiled disingenuous comparison as to make me wonder why on earth you'd post it?

To show how much Iraqi oil is in the scheme of things.
You seem to think it is a big deal (and reserves mean nothing to the price of oil, it's all about volume/ease of production, location and quality)
If we had wanted to maximize Iraqi oil production (thus lowering our cost of oil) our strategy would have been quite a bit different.

As to current production it would be higher but oil pipelines and oil wells are fairly easy targets and Al Qaeda wants to keep the amount of oil Iraq produces down as oil revenue improves the life of the Iraqis and that is clearly counter to their overall goals.

Arthur

Oh noes, we are guarding our diplomats... the horror...

Yeah, a 700 million dollar horror


After much delay the United States opened its new $700 million embassy in Iraq on Monday, inaugurating the largest — and most expensive — embassy ever built.

The 104-acre compound, bigger than the Vatican and about the size of 80 football fields, boasts 21 buildings, a commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, as well as telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities.

The compound is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of the National Mall in Washington.

It has space for 1,000 employees with six apartment blocks and is 10 times larger than any other U.S. embassy.

In a ceremony Monday attended by U.S. and Iraqi officials, the U.S. Ambassador Ryan Cocker ushered in a "new era" for both Iraq and for the Iraqi-U.S. relationship, although critics have said that the embassy's fortress-like design and immense size show a fundamental disconnect between the U.S. and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in 2006.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476464,00.html#ixzz1bogVwf1u


Who is paying for this?




The US embassy – the largest and most expensive in the world – is in a green zone of its own in Baghdad, supplied by armed convoys and generating its own water and electricity, and treating its own sewage. At 104 acres, the embassy is almost the same size as Vatican City. It is here that the US is transforming its military-led approach into one of muscular diplomacy.

State department figures show that some 17,000 personnel will be under the jurisdiction of the US ambassador. In addition, there are also consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each. Crucially, all these US staff, including military and security contractors, will have diplomatic immunity. Essentially, the Obama administration is reaping the political capital of withdrawing US troops while hedging the impact of the withdrawal with an increase in private security contractors working for a diplomatic mission unlike any other on the planet.

This "surge" of contractors has even raised the possibility of controversial firm Blackwater, now known as Xe, returning to the country. The firm was responsible for the deaths of 17 Iraqis in 2007 in the infamous Nisour Square massacre, yet president and chief executive Ted Wright told the Wall Street Journal recently that he would like to do business in Iraq again.

In 2008, much was made in of the fact that as part of the Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) between the US and Iraq, contractors would lose their immunity. However, as a congressional research report noted: "The term defined in the agreement, 'US contractors and their employees', only applies to contractors that are operating under a contract/subcontract with or for the United States forces. Therefore, US contractors operating in Iraq under contract to other US departments/agencies are not subject to the terms of the Sofa."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/25/us-departure-iraq-illusion

That embassy opened two years ago.

A horror it has not been.

Arthur

Yeah, a 700 million dollar horror



Who is paying for this?

We did. So what?

We did. So what?

I'd like to see an 80 football field Iraqi embassy in NY being seen as not a big deal. The whole Iraq war was of course to make sure that the USD is kept slightly above toilet paper status which was threatened by Saddam moving over to the euro as oil currency. So its not diplomats who are being protected in this 104 acre embassy, its the lifestyles of the rich and famous. This is also why, in between their revolution, Libyan "rebels" [previously known as al Qaeda in Mesopotamia] were establishing a central bank so that Libyan money supply was no longer internally controlled, keeping Libya both debt free and self sufficient, both things in a country which threaten US economy



Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

When the smoke eventually clears from all the cruise missiles and cluster bombs, you will see the Allied reformers move in to reform Libya’s monetary system, pumping it full of worthless dollars, priming it for a series of chaotic inflationary cycles.

thus introducing both Iraq and Libya to the wonderful world of World Bank and IMF policies as has already been done elsewhere in Africa by the Americans. We've seen the vast improvement in African states blessed by the global banking cartel system. So whats the improvement in Iraq after 10 years of American occupation? And how has the 100 acre embassy contributed to it?

So whats the improvement in Iraq after 10 years of American occupation? And how has the 100 acre embassy contributed to it?

The embassy was built with plenty of local materials and labor and buys supplies from the locals, so clearly it would be an economic advantage to have it in the country.

As to the country itself:

GDP in 2002 was 20.5 Billion, per Capita of $802
GCP in 2011 is 108 Billion, per Capita of $3,300.

Imports were 24 Billion in 05, 78 Billion in 11
Exports were 22 Billion in 05, 59 Billion in 11

But if oil is traded in euros and the euro loses value, then oil will become cheaper for the US.

But if oil is traded in euros and the euro loses value, then oil will become cheaper for the US.

Nah, they adjust the price of oil to compensate for large fluctuations in value.
The currency used doesn't have much to do with it.

The currency used doesn't have much to do with it.

D'you know why the FedRes has stopped publishing the M3?

I'd like to see an 80 football field Iraqi embassy in NY being seen as not a big deal.

Foreign embassies to the USA tend to be located in Washington D.C.. That's where the Iraqi embassy has always been, in particular.


So whats the improvement in Iraq after 10 years of American occupation? And how has the 100 acre embassy contributed to it?

2003+10 = 2013. You seem to be thinking of some other country.

Data on reconstruction progress is publicly available. You can look at it, if you care.

Meanwhile, we've just seen that the government of Iraq is sufficiently sovereign to demand the removal of all US troops and get it. So I'm unclear one who you think you're speaking for when you rail against an embassy that said government appears to be okay with.

What was the US doing in Iraq in the first place?

Foreign embassies to the USA tend to be located in Washington D.C.. That's where the Iraqi embassy has always been, in particular.

Okay, then lets have 5 Iraqi embassies the size of 80 football fields in major metropolises in the US. Why not?




2003+10 = 2013. You seem to be thinking of some other country.

Data on reconstruction progress is publicly available. You can look at it, if you care.

Meanwhile, we've just seen that the government of Iraq is sufficiently sovereign to demand the removal of all US troops and get it. So I'm unclear one who you think you're speaking for when you rail against an embassy that said government appears to be okay with.

Hmm okay 8 years of occupation following 13 years of wars and sanctions. Whats better?

For example: Electricity


Electricity — or the lack thereof — remains more than a complaint. It has become a central benchmark by which Iraqis judge the post-war order. And, almost universally, they judge it to have failed in this regard.

Two phrases heard on the streets are repeated so often they have become conventional wisdom, even mantras: The country that could put a man on the moon can’t fix another country’s electricity? The superpower that got Kuwait’s electricity running within months in the early 1990s couldn’t do the same in Iraq a decade later?

But increasingly the blame has shifted from the Americans to successive Iraqi governments. Some Iraqis single out their country’s current political power vacuum. Five months since parliamentary elections in March, the competing political parties are still unable to agree on a new government, or even on a prime minister.

“Right now, the electricity is better than before, when the peaceful demonstrations took place a month ago.

“Before, we used to get one hour of electricity every six hours; now we get two hours of electricity every six hours. But it is for sure not satisfying.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/electricity-iraqs-other-power-vacuum/#p[EotAau],h[EotAau,1,2]

reconstruction implies repairing what they broke (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132173052269144.html). I'm interested in whats better than it was before the invasion, apart from the 700 million dollar embassy with swimming pools and shopping centers.

What was the US doing in Iraq in the first place?

Destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein.

I'm interested in whats better than it was before the invasion...

Saddam Hussein is dead.

Who was Saddam Hussein?

D'you know why the FedRes has stopped publishing the M3?

Because you told them it was making them look bad?

I dont watch the news...

Saddam Hussein is dead.

So are over a million Iraqis.Which makes you wonder who the real tyrant is in Iraq - still the Dept of Defense does have other priorities where "reconstruction" is concerned like resort hotels (http://www.edelweisslodgeandresort.com/afrc_worldwide.html), skiing locations (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1181/chalmers_johnson_empire_of_bases) and golf courses (http://www.alternet.org/economy/82009/)

Not true.

For example: Electricity.

And your data is wrong.

prewar levels
Nationwide 3,958 MW capacity
Nationwide daily supply 4-8 hours
Baghdad 16-24 hours
Total Generation 95,000 MWHrs

March 2010
Nationwide 6,280 MW Capacity
Nationwide daily supply 18.4 hours
Baghdad 19.5 hours
Total Generation 150,670 MWhrs

Source Brookings Institute - Iraq Index

So the real change has been in improving the electricity in the overall country instead of just focusing on Baghdad.

I presented the GDP figures and import/export figures that clearly show a growing robust economy.

Indeed, one of the most telling numbers about change is the number of Telephone subscribers.
Prewar, in a country of 25 Million people there were but 833,000 people with land lines (no cell at all), in January of 2010 there were ~19,500,000 (cellular) 1,300,000 (landlines)

Or the number of Internet subscribers, Prewar it was 4,500, in Jan 2010 it was1,600,000


for the first time in the modern era, bank deposits in Iraq accounted for more than half of the money supply. "Iraq's economy is growing out of its wartime difficulties quickly and transitioning from a centralized economy to one that is market-based," says Saleh, an Iraq native and veteran North American banking analyst.

"With credit accounting for more than one-third of bank revenue and deposits at record levels, our analysis identifies attractive and specific investment opportunities in the Iraqi banking sector," Saleh says. http://www.albawaba.com/iraqs-private-banks-setting-growth-records-attracting-foreign-investors-393833

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnahrain%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3Dbh9%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ar&u=http://www.almowatennews.com/news_view_20892.html

Arthur

So I'm unclear one who you think you're speaking for when you rail against an embassy that said government appears to be okay with.

at one time, some govts have no problem with pedo tourism. it must have been ok then. wonder who the protectors of children were speaking for then

---------------------------------

strange that the incongruity of bumfuck and supposedly independent iraq getting an embassy of this size is lost on some.

i still remember tho, in the days of naivety and ignorance, all those massive military bases were taken to be an indication of a permanent military presence when all that was required was to follow the money trail

Not true.

Really? You notice any discussion on the 8h per day of electricity now available to Iraqis?



Massive U.S. Embassy In Iraq Will Expand Further As Soldiers Leave

Yet the embassy is turning out to be too small for the swelling retinue of gunmen, gardeners and other workers the State Department considers necessary to provide security and "life support" for the sizable group of diplomats, military advisers and other executive branch officials who will be taking shelter there once the troops withdraw from the country.

The number of personnel under the authority of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq will swell from 8,000 to about 16,000 as the troop presence is drawn down, a State Department official told The Huffington Post. "About 10 percent would be core programmatic staff, 10 percent management and aviation, 30 percent life support contractors -- and 50 percent security," he said.

As part of that increase, the State Department will double its complement of security contractors -- fielding a private army of over 5,000 to guard the embassy and other diplomatic outposts and protect personnel as they travel beyond the fortifications, the official said. Another 3,000 armed guards will protect Office of Security Cooperation personnel, who are responsible for sales and training related to an estimated $13 billion in pending U.S. arms sales, including tanks, squadrons of attack helicopters and 36 F-16s.

Under the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between Iraq and former President Bush in 2008 -- and, at least thus far, still in effect -- all U.S. troops are supposed to leave the country by the end of this year.

As of now, there are about 45,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq. Obama administration officials had been hoping the Iraqi government would allow at least 10,000 to remain past the end-of-the-year deadline. Earlier this month, however, they floated the idea of keeping only 3,000. But given the unpredictable nature of the fractured Iraqi leadership, nothing is certain.

As the Department of Defense pulls out and its spending drops, the State Department is expecting its costs to skyrocket. State asked Congress for $2.7 billion for its Iraqi operations in fiscal year 2011, and got $2.1 billion. It wants $6.2 billion for next year. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee estimates that State's plans will cost $25 to $30 billion over the next five years.

Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, told the Commission on Wartime Contracting in June that State intends to pay $3 billion in the next five years on its major private security contracts alone.

While $6 billion a year might not seem like much compared to the estimated $806 billion in direct appropriations spent on the Iraq war and reconstruction thus far, that is still an enormous amount of money. Consider, for instance, that the State Department's total operating budget this year is about $14 billion.

Money isn't the only resource being drained by Iraq. The toll on the diplomatic corps is substantial.

In addition to staffing the embassy in Baghdad, the department intends to have more than 1,000 people on staff at each of its two consulates, making them far larger than all but the most important U.S. embassies around the world. Given the de facto partitioning of Iraq, one consulate, in Erbil, will essentially be an embassy to the Kurds; the other, in Basra, an embassy to the Shia -- and to the country's biggest oil fields.


When do you think they will stop thinking about their own leisure and start thinking about repaying the people they went to "save"? Or are they simply opening a shop to sell their arms from?

So are over a million Iraqis.

Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

As to the embassy itself, considering that Americans will likely remain targets for some time it made sense to create a larger compound where Embassy staff could live.

And so unlike normal Embassies, this one includes a lot of housing and facilities for the residents along with it's own water treatment and power generation.

On a normal day, about 1,000 embassy members and family will be present and about 3,000 local workers.

Complaining the embassy is too big when our troops are leaving in a few months is almost too funny for words though.

Arthur

at one time, some govts have no problem with pedo tourism. it must have been ok then. wonder who the protectors of children were speaking for then


What do you mean, at one time? The US regularly engages in child prostitution via its "security" contractors

WikiLeaks Reveals That Military Contractors Have Not Lost Their Taste For Child Prostitutes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-reveals-that-mi_n_793816.html)

This must be another way of "saving" the children.

Nope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Body_Count_project

Yep


The organisation Iraq Body Count (IBC) has documented at least 99,900 violent civilian deaths as a direct result of the US-led invasion.

But that's an extremely conservative estimate based largely on deaths reported in Western media, an approach bound to undercount the massive death toll from the invasion.

Indeed, as WikiLeaks revealed last October, the US government covered up the violent killings of more than 15,000 Iraqi civilians – killings that weren't reported by any Western paper which amounted to roughly 20 per cent of IBC's official count at the time.

Unfortunately, the number of dead Iraqis is likely a lot higher than IBC's count.

A 2006 study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University published in the Lancet medical journal found that in just over three years there were 654,965 "excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war", with Iraq's death rate more than doubling due to gunfire – the leading cause of mortality – as well as lack of medicine and clean water.

Then a 2008 analysis by British polling firm Opinion Research Business estimated "that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003".

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201132173052269144.html

Nope, we may not know what it is, but it's not a million.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:IRQ&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+in+iraq

Iraq can ask us to leave any time.

Iraq can ask us to leave any time.

That hasn't worked so far. What they can do, is make Americans suffer along with them.

IRAQ: Baghdad's Green Zone also to suffer electricity blackouts (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/06/iraq-green-zone-also-to-suffer-electricity-blackouts.html)

Much more useful in getting them off their arses and putting them to work, I think

That hasn't worked so far. What they can do, is make Americans suffer along with them.

IRAQ: Baghdad's Green Zone also to suffer electricity blackouts (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/06/iraq-green-zone-also-to-suffer-electricity-blackouts.html)

Much more useful in getting them off their arses and putting them to work, I think

Nope.
The embassy has it's own power generation capability.

quibbling over numbers imply that some were expected to die in a bogus search for wmd.for an us apologist like adoucette, 100,000 is reasonable.

for others....

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Nope.
The embassy has it's own power generation capability.

So what? You think that will ensure 24 hour power supply? Generators require maintenance and pissing people off does not ensure a happy state of affairs. I think you'll find that not only are generators inside the embassy "overextended" but they mysteriously will require much more maintenance than anticipated


The Embassy’s air conditioners won’t be operating at full power until further notice due to a temporary fuel shortage. “Recent security incidents” have halted fuel deliveries to Baghdad’s Green Zone, according to an email sent Tuesday morning to Embassy staffers. Iraqi officials have blocked roads leading to the Green Zone, meaning the compound’s main fuel supplier, KBR, is allotting fuel in smaller quantities.

The bigger irony of course is that all of Iraq suffers from lack of electricity; Iraqi power guys estimate that less than half the juice needed by citizens will be available, meaning the suffering that most Iraqis have endured under US-provided freedom is now being visited on the World’s Largest Embassy (c). Last year, temperatures rose to 120 degrees, and people took to the streets in anger. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki sacked the Electricity Minister, and then banned all protests. That unrest could be repeated again this year, despite all the government’s promises of new power projects. Also, on June 25, in a vote of confidence, the director general at the Ministry of Electricity was assassinated in southeast Baghdad.


Anyway, my point was that Americans are worse than useless in Iraq and the sooner they leave, the better for Iraqis, who at least under Saddam were used to getting water, electricity and food properly

Don't forget the torture! I'm sure they miss it.

indeed

http://revcom.us/a/1242/images/abu-ghraib-pyramid.jpg

Don't forget the torture! I'm sure they miss it.

I'm sure they will get their turn as well seeing as how the wikileaks cables keep coming up with civilians killed or tortured by Americans and:


U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top brass have repeatedly said any deal to keep U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal deadline would require a guarantee of legal protection for American soldiers.

But the Iraqis refused to agree to that, opening up the prospect of Americans being tried in Iraqi courts and subjected to Iraqi punishment.

The negotiations were strained following WikiLeaks’ release of a diplomatic cable that alleged Iraqi civilians, including children, were killed in a 2006 raid by American troops rather than in an airstrike as the U.S. military initially reported.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021?print=true

What do you think they would consider appropriate punishment? A stint in Abu Ghraib?

Better a shit pile than holes drilled in your knees. Seriously, compared to Saddam our torture is like a frat hazing.

quibbling over numbers imply that some were expected to die in a bogus search for wmd.for an us apologist like adoucette, 100,000 is reasonable.

for others....

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

And that's not what she meant.

She clarified it meaning using the Sanctions were worth it as a way to get Saddam out versus an invasion as that administration thought that was a better policy.

As it turns out, and the numbers show, going after Saddam directly was the only workable approach.

The fact of the matter was Saddam was killing Iraqis and people in the countries around him and those trying to stop the killings, and given the weapons he was stockpiling it would only get worse.


According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule". Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war. Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000 to over 600,000, estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000, and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000 to 200,000. Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

So there was NO ANSWER to the problem that wasn't going to result in Iraqis dying, but the one we chose was the one designed to keep those deaths to a miniumum.

More to the point, we took it upon ourselves to pour many hundreds of billions of dollars back into Iraq to rebuild it after those decades of sanctions and war.

The current situation shows that the road taken, while difficult, has promise of a brighter day for the Iraqi people.

Arthur

So what? You think that will ensure 24 hour power supply?

Yes, I am sure they will SAM.


Anyway, my point was that Americans are worse than useless in Iraq and the sooner they leave, the better for Iraqis, who at least under Saddam were used to getting water, electricity and food properly

And that's the point SAM, we were never intending on staying.
But the place is MUCH BETTER than under Saddam.

I know you miss his many wars, gassings, killings and torture, but hey, you can't have everything SAM.

/cackle

same witless talking points

Of course, reality doesn't change, and the present impending removal of all troops proves it wasn't a war of occupation.

obviously not your hallucinatory one in which a response to kurdish and shiite uprisings against the iraqi govt should consist of goblets of champagne and platters of strawberries

obviously not your hallucinatory one in which a response to kurdish and shiite uprisings against the iraqi govt should consist of goblets of champagne and platters of strawberries

When the "govt" is made up of these:

Qusay Hussein (1966–2003), son of the president, head of the elite Republican Guard, believed to have been chosen by Saddam as his successor.
Uday Hussein (1964–2003), son of the president, had a private torture chamber and of the rapes and killings of many women. He was partially paralyzed after a 1996 attempt on his life, and was leader of the paramilitary group Fedayeen Saddam and of the Iraqi media.
Taha Yassin Ramadan, Vice-President. He oversaw the mass killings of a Shi'a revolt in 1991, and he was born in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Tariq Aziz, Foreign Minister of Iraq, backed up the executions by hanging of political opponents after the revolution of 1968.
Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Hussein's half brother, leader of the Iraqi secret service, Mukhabarat. He was Iraq's representative to the United Nations in Geneva.
Sabawi Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Hussein's half brother, he was the leader of the Mukhabarat during the 1991 Gulf War. Director of Iraq's general security from 1991 to 1996. He was involved in the 1991 suppression of Kurds.
Watban Ibrahim al-Tikriti, Hussein's half brother, former senior Interior Minister who was also Saddam's presidential adviser. Shot in the leg by Uday Hussein in 1995. He has ordered tortures, rapes, murders and deportations.
Ali Hassan al-Majid, Chemical Ali, mastermind behind Saddam's lethal gassing of rebel Kurds in 1988. A first cousin of Saddam Hussein;
Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri, military commander, vice-president of the Revolutionary Command Council and deputy commander in chief of the armed forces during various military campaigns.
Aziz Saleh Nuhmah, appointed governor of Kuwait from November 1990 to February 1991, ordered looting of stores and rapes of Kuwaiti women during his tenure. Also ordered the destruction of Shi'a holy sites during the 1970s and 1980s as governor of two Iraqi provinces.

Then yeah, uprisings are to be expected.

Of course I'm sure they were all stand up guys, just misunderstood.

Arthur

But the place is MUCH BETTER than under Saddam.
I know you miss his many wars, gassings, killings and torture, but hey, you can't have everything SAM.
Unbelievable, you are living in a dream.

You try telling this
But the place is MUCH BETTER than under Saddam to the millions of families that have lost loved ones to the sanctions and US invasion of Iraq. source (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=120)

Of course I'm sure they were all stand up guys, just misunderstood.

Arthur


not at all
it's just that one should have no illusions as to what would happen if one rebels against a despot.
an ardent proponent of reality such as yourself would naturally know this
right?

adoucette: the kurds and shiites have to take responsibility for their actions.

estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000, and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000 to 200,000

Nope, millions of people were not killed getting rid of Saddam, that's a gross exaggeration, but there are decades of history under Saddam showing millions of people that were being killed.

For some reason you apparently think that if the UN had just pulled out that Saddam wouldn't have kept on his murderous ways. At the rate he was going adding another million or so, or starting another major regional conflict certainly wasn't out of the question.

Since his removal there are undeniable metrics that show the country is improving.

And finally there is an Elected Govt working under an Iraqi written Constitution that has a chance of providing hope and freedom for the 31 Million Iraqis, something that would never happen under Saddam.

Arthur

at the rate he was going adding another million or so,


/laughs

rather conservative, dont you think?

Nope, millions of people were not killed getting rid of Saddam, that's a gross exaggeration, but there are decades of history under Saddam showing millions of people that were being killed.

For some reason you apparently think that if the UN had just pulled out that Saddam wouldn't have kept on his murderous ways. At the rate he was going adding another million or so, or starting another major regional conflict certainly wasn't out of the question.

Since his removal there are undeniable metrics that show the country is improving.

And finally there is an Elected Govt working under an Iraqi written Constitution that has a chance of providing hope and freedom for the 31 Million Iraqis, something that would never happen under Saddam.

Arthur
OK. I understand you are new to debate & discussion, but I have provided you with a credible source for point, a long established and respected research organisation - which you have obviously not reviewed. If you want me to take you seriously please provide a credible source/sources for your statement - "but there are decades of history under Saddam showing millions of people that were being killed."

Unbelievable, you are living in a dream.

You try telling this to the millions of families that have lost loved ones to the sanctions and US invasion of Iraq. source (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=120)

I like how you've arrogated the right to speak for Iraqis to yourself, there. Very respectful of their self-determination, to be sure.

Meanwhile, there are actual statistics and polls that provide answers to these questions:

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

Not that such should stop anyone here from beating others over the head with the premise that Iraqis support their view. What fun would that be?

Okay, then lets have 5 Iraqi embassies the size of 80 football fields in major metropolises in the US. Why not?

Other than that there is no apparent purpose for such and that Iraq doesn't seem interested in building and staffing such?


Hmm okay 8 years of occupation following 13 years of wars and sanctions. Whats better?

Do you mean "which is more accurate?"


I'm interested in whats better than it was before the invasion, apart from the 700 million dollar embassy with swimming pools and shopping centers.

And yet, you don't seem interested in actually finding and dealing in the freely-available information on such.

at one time, some govts have no problem with pedo tourism. it must have been ok then. wonder who the protectors of children were speaking for then

That's the kind of thing that Adolph Hitler would say.


strange that the incongruity of bumfuck and supposedly independent iraq getting an embassy of this size is lost on some.

There's nothing bumfuck about Iraq, nor anything "incongruous" about the size of the embassy.

Anyway, my point was that Americans are worse than useless in Iraq and the sooner they leave, the better for Iraqis, who at least under Saddam were used to getting water, electricity and food properly

Now there's an effective moral pedestal to shame all those apologists for American Empire from: apologist for Saddam!

I'd suggest that now is a good time for our resident anti-American peanut gallery to spend a moment considering rhetorical strategy and positioning. If you can't find a way to be happy about Iraq forcing American troops to leave the country, in the short term and over the wishes of the American government - to claim such as a sort of vindication - then you are in serious danger of driving yourself into irrelevance.

That's the kind of thing that Adolph Hitler would say.


well hello then adolf :D


....nor anything "incongruous" about the size of the embassy.

ok
you work the logic from a single consul in a tiny pacific island thru a 5 member consulate in a country with some trade relations, thru an embassy staffed by 20 in a country with citizens and a lot of trade and cultural relations to the one in iraq

your funny . Hilarious.

ok
you work the logic from a single consul in a tiny pacific island thru a 5 member consulate in a country with some trade relations, thru an embassy staffed by 20 in a country with citizens and a lot of trade and cultural relations to the one in iraq

Better yet, I reject outright your attempt to assign your own homework to myself, note the obvious features of the situation that resulted in this particular embassy, and await your decision to either put some meat on the present embassy-size-paranoia argument, or turn to something substantial instead.

... note the obvious features of the situation. .....


hmm
whats that, adoucette?


So the real change has been in improving the electricity in the overall country instead of just focusing on Baghdad.

I presented the GDP figures and import/export figures that clearly show a growing robust economy.

Indeed, one of the most telling numbers about change is the number of Telephone subscribers.
Prewar, in a country of 25 Million people there were but 833,000 people with land lines (no cell at all), in January of 2010 there were ~19,500,000 (cellular) 1,300,000 (landlines)

Or the number of Internet subscribers, Prewar it was 4,500, in Jan 2010 it was1,600,000


/smirk

I like how you've arrogated the right to speak for Iraqis to yourself, there. Very respectful of their self-determination, to be sure.

Meanwhile, there are actual statistics and polls that provide answers to these questions:

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

Not that such should stop anyone here from beating others over the head with the premise that Iraqis support their view. What fun would that be?
Did you at least peek at my source?

Did you at least peek at my source?

Your source is nothing more than a single paragraph that asserts that a certain number of Iraqis have died. It does not say anything one way or the other about whether Iraqis feel that they are better off now than under Saddam. Your arrogation of the role of Speaker for the Iraqi Dead in order to browbeat people of differing political viewpoints here remains cheap and offensive.

http://i.imgur.com/YYcOx.jpg (http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/820/the-nec-aka-new-embassy-compound/)


*“Encircled by blast walls and cut off from the rest of Baghdad, it stands out like the crusader castles that once dominated the Middle East.”

*“The embassy is going to have a thousand people hunkered behind sand-bags. I don’t know how you conduct diplomacy in that way.”

*“Let’s not play games. This is not an embassy. No country needs to construct and maintain in the center of a foreign capital an embassy the size of a small city-state, self-contained in every way, with a staff of more than one thousand, and with its own missile defense system, for heaven’s sake. Not, that is, if the goal is to maintain diplomatic relations. Let’s call this what it really is – an Imperial Regional Command and Control Center.

*“Back in the ’60′s one of our next door neighbors in Baghdad was a U.S. embassy employee and his family. They used the same water, sewage, and electrical supply services that everyone else used, and their phone was on the same Iraqi telephone service every Iraqi household had. Like most middle class Iraqis, they had an Iraqi maid, an Iraqi cook, an Iraqi driver, and an Iraqi gardener (and boy was their garden beautiful – the nicest in the neighborhood!). They mostly ate the food that their cook bought in the Iraqi markets, though they also had access to a commisary with American specialties such as peanut butter and brown sugar. When they moved in they were a family of three – father, mother, and a daughter of two or three years. During their stay in that house they had a baby son, who was born in the same private Iraqi maternity hospital used by our family. That was then. Now U.S. “embassy” personnel will be hermetically sealed off from Iraq, Iraqis, and Iraqi services and infrastructure. How things have changed. …”

hahahahaha


Saddam Hussein is dead.


$800 billion and counting

/snicker

Yes, there is no logic at all in that statement.
The denomination it is sold in doesn't have any effect on our money supply.You know Arthur, I don't know enough about the monetary system to know if the word "supply" is being used to narrowly make a correct statement that's misleading. I'm thinking the "effect" probably invalidates the entire statement as it's tool broad. If the denomination was not important, then why sell it in USD?

See, I'm of the mind that OIL is one of the MOST important commodities backing our dollar. Just behind our military (if one could think of it as a commodity). You've never heard of the petro-dollar?


The phrase petrodollar warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare)refers to a hypothesis that one of the unknown, driving forces of United States foreign policy over recent decades has been the status of the United States dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced. The term was coined by William R. Clark, who has written a book with the same title. The phrase oil currency wars is sometimes used with the same meaning.

The reality is that the value of the U.S. dollar is determined by the fact that oil is sold in dollars. If the denomination changes to another currency, such as the euro, many countries would sell dollars and cause the banks to shift their reserves, as they would no longer need dollars to buy oil and gas (see World Bank and IMF). This would thus weaken the dollar relative to the euro (see supply and demand). The U.S. administrations' thinking is greatly affected by fear of the consequences of a weaker dollar, particularly higher oil prices. This motivation is seen as underlying and explaining many aspects of U.S. foreign policy, including the Iraq War.

As long as the USD remains the world reserve currency, we can extract wealth by printing more dollars. How would you like it if ANY country could print USD? That may be how they see things when we run up Trillion dollar a year deficits.



Second is a question: Please explicitly explain why, with no evidence of WMD, the USA invaded Iraq.

$800 billion and counting

/snicker

Yeah, it's a real hoot how much money it takes to remove some dictators from power.

Second is a question: Please explicitly explain why, with no evidence of WMD, the USA invaded Iraq.


warmongers have faith based axioms
you cannot reason with them....


... given the weapons he was stockpiling

...under the sands of iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_W ar#Stockpiles_still_hidden_conjecture) and syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_W ar#Stockpiles_transported_to_another_country_conje cture)

oh, and the indian ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_conjecture_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_W ar#Indian_Ocean)

You know Arthur, I don't know enough about the monetary system to know if the word "supply" is being used to narrowly make a correct statement that's misleading. I'm thinking the "effect" probably invalidates the entire statement as it's tool broad. If the denomination was not important, then why sell it in USD?

Because it's a stable currency.


See, I'm of the mind that OIL is one of the MOST important commodities backing our dollar. Oil does not back our dollar at all.


Just behind our military (if one could think of it as a commodity). You've never heard of the petro-dollar? Our military does not back our dollar. Selling something in a given denomination (because of future contracts) is based on the currency having relative stability, which the USD does. But the fact that oil is bought and sold in USDs has nothing to do with our Monetary supply.

Simple example, if Germany wants to buy oil and it's going for $90 USD a barrel they can buy it with the equivilent amount of Euros because the exchange is made via a computer, and X amount of Euros (at the going exchange rate) is subtracted from the German bank account and Y amount of $s are credited to the seller. No one shows up with bags of bills.



As long as the USD remains the world reserve currency, we can extract wealth by printing more dollars. No you can't. Increasing the number of dollars decreases the value of the dollars.

How would you like it if ANY country could print USD? That may be how they see things when we run up Trillion dollar a year deficits.


Second is a question: Please explicitly explain why, with no evidence of WMD, the USA invaded Iraq.

Cart before the horse.
There was evidence that WMDs had been present, what we were prevented from doing was ensuring that they had been removed/destroyed.

Arthur

warmongers have faith based axioms
you cannot reason with them....

BS, we didn't start the wars.

this is fun
anyone remember saddam's dilemma?

Saddam's Swan Song; The Logic of Disproving a Negative (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/weekinreview/the-world-saddam-s-swan-song-the-logic-of-disproving-a-negative.html?src=pm)

Cart before the horse.
There was evidence that WMDs had been present, what we were prevented from doing was ensuring that they had been removed/destroyed.

Arthur


hahaha
told ya!

*“Let’s not play games. This is not an embassy. No country needs to construct and maintain in the center of a foreign capital an embassy the size of a small city-state, self-contained in every way, with a staff of more than one thousand, and with its own missile defense system, for heaven’s sake. Not, that is, if the goal is to maintain diplomatic relations. Let’s call this what it really is – an Imperial Regional Command and Control Center.

LOL what a bozo. I guess he forgets what happened at the Iranian Embassy. We haven't.


*“Back in the ’60′s one of our next door neighbors in Baghdad was a U.S. embassy employee and his family. They used the same water, sewage, and electrical supply services that everyone else used, and their phone was on the same Iraqi telephone service every Iraqi household had. Like most middle class Iraqis, they had an Iraqi maid, an Iraqi cook, an Iraqi driver, and an Iraqi gardener (and boy was their garden beautiful – the nicest in the neighborhood!). They mostly ate the food that their cook bought in the Iraqi markets, though they also had access to a commisary with American specialties such as peanut butter and brown sugar. When they moved in they were a family of three – father, mother, and a daughter of two or three years. During their stay in that house they had a baby son, who was born in the same private Iraqi maternity hospital used by our family. That was then. Now U.S. “embassy” personnel will be hermetically sealed off from Iraq, Iraqis, and Iraqi services and infrastructure. How things have changed. …”

As if the world is the same now as it was in the 60s.

That entire article was written by someone who hasn't a clue about what it takes to provide security in today's world with Terrorists with IEDs, RPGs and wanting to get onto YouTube.

Arthur

/snicker

crazed warmongers celebrating their liberation of iraq from tyranny hunkered down in bunkers blathering about telephone and internet stats

hahaha
told ya!

Except that paper didn't prove anything. Inspections do.

During his Trial Hussein denied repeated assertions by his interrogator of a current weapons of mass destruction capability in Iraq, yet said he had resisted U.N. weapons inspections because he "was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation_of_Saddam_Hussein

/snicker

crazed warmongers celebrating their liberation of iraq from tyranny hunkered down in bunkers blathering about telephone and internet stats

NOt as bad as crazed Saddam supporters upset that not their favorite mass killer is no longer wiping out people in the middle east.

ahh
a tacit acknowledgment of two evils

/snic........ker

ahh
a tacit acknowledgment of two evils

/snic........ker

Not at all.

I've presented quite a bit of data showing the improvement in Iraq, far more than just telephone and internet stats.

Not sure why it upsets you that things are improving there.

And, as Quad pointed out, you have yet to add any real argument to support your paranoia over the size of the Embassy Compound in Iraq.

Arthur

Your source is nothing more than a single paragraph that asserts that a certain number of Iraqis have died. It does not say anything one way or the other about whether Iraqis feel that they are better off now than under Saddam. Your arrogation of the role of Speaker for the Iraqi Dead in order to browbeat people of differing political viewpoints here remains cheap and offensive.
A single line? - not. Have another look.

Speak for the Iraqi Dead? - victims all grieve the same, the point is obvious.

Browbeat? What is the point of this forum if not to discuss/debate and offer opinions, supported by facts. Are we all here to agree and get along?

Cheap and offensive? If critiquing apologists justifying or rationalizing wholesale slaughter offends you, so be it.

Not at all.

I've presented quite a bit of data showing the improvement in Iraq, far more than just telephone and internet stats.


indeed
the iraqis have got it made while the americans are hiding in a crusader castle equipped with missiles. what the fuck went wrong?

you warmongers created that reality for yourselves. it is an indication of your pathology and paranoia.

HEADS UP!! (http://www.shockwave-sound.com/sound-effects/explosion-sounds/expl05.wav)


Not sure why it upsets you that things are improving there.


is it relatively safe and secure?


A recent article in The Jerusalem Post said that Iraq's economy is recovering fast. The IMF expects its GDP to grow by 12.5% in the current year – largely on the back of increased oil exports, and high energy prices – after growth of just 1% last year. Foreign direct investors are flocking into the war-torn country, with $45.6bn invested in the first half of 2011, twice what was invested in the whole of 2010. Favored sectors include hotels, property, infrastructure, soft drinks and telecoms.
seems that way, yes?

indeed
the iraqis have got it made while the americans are hiding in a crusader castle equipped with missiles. what the fuck went wrong?

Nothing went wrong.
The Iraqis indeed have it made compared to living under Saddam.
As for our people stationed there, we just don't want to deal with our embassy staff being picked off by insurgents and/or kidnapped.

Maybe you didn't get the memo but there are groups today, such as Al Qaeda, who aren't above beheading people for no good reason.

Or have you conveniently forgotten people like Daniel Pearl?


you warmongers created that reality for yourselves. it is an indication of your pathology and paranoia.

Total BS
The bombing of the Cole wasn't paranoia.
Bali, Beruit etc wasn't parnaoia.
9/11 wasn't paranoia.
etc etc etc


is it relatively safe and secure?


A recent article in The Jerusalem Post said that Iraq's economy is recovering fast. The IMF expects its GDP to grow by 12.5% in the current year – largely on the back of increased oil exports, and high energy prices – after growth of just 1% last year. Foreign direct investors are flocking into the war-torn country, with $45.6bn invested in the first half of 2011, twice what was invested in the whole of 2010. Favored sectors include hotels, property, infrastructure, soft drinks and telecoms.
seems that way, yes?

Yes it is.
But US citizens would still be plum targets, hence a higher level of security is justified.

Arthur

Other than that there is no apparent purpose for such and that Iraq doesn't seem interested in building and staffing such?


Yes, interesting point you have there. So why are Americans interested in building a fortified and self sufficient city state in Iraq? What is the apparent purpose for such?

Yes, interesting point you have there. So why are Americans interested in building a fortified and self sufficient city state in Iraq? What is the apparent purpose for such?

A thousand people does not a city make SAM.

Arthur

A thousand people does not a city make SAM.

Arthur

How many "embassies" have 50 airplanes and their own electricity and sanitation infrastructure, health facilities, shopping and entertainment buildings, private accomodation for thousands of foreigners inside the premises and 50% "staff" as private bodyguards?

Why do you care?

Anyone with a brain cell should care about militant totalitarianism taking over society in whatever garb. Are the Americans living in the Vatican city sized embassy in Iraq going to be defending themselves against the Iraqi people - is that why they need to be fortified and armed? What did the embassy look like under Saddam?

Or have you conveniently forgotten people like Daniel Pearl?

The bombing of the Cole wasn't paranoia.
Bali, Beruit etc wasn't parnaoia.
9/11 wasn't paranoia.
etc etc etc

i see
pearl gets abducted in pakistan and the us plunks down a crusader castle in iraq as a response

the beirut barracks housing american and french troops gets bombed in 83, a bomb set off in paddys pub in bali halfway round the world, 9/11 in america.... all that causes the us to plunk down a crusader castle in iraq as a response

that's paranoia, pal

Are they going to control the Iraqi people from inside the embassy? Of course they are going to be a desired target for terrorists.

After killing a million people, they are going to be as popular as Adolf Hitler in Jerusalem. I'm not sure how building their own city within the Iraqi capital is supposed to make it better

What did the embassy look like under Saddam?


some wikishit for you, dear :D

The United States' Legation Baghdad was changed to embassy status in 1946. The building was designed by Josep Lluis Sert and completed in 1957, with its main priority on keeping the building cool rather than security.This building remained the embassy until 1967, after the Six-Day War. The U.S. Interests Section was moved to the Belgian embassy in 1972; in 1984 this was upgraded to embassy status following the resumption of U.S.-Iraqi ties. Just days before the Persian Gulf War, the embassy closed The U.S. Interests Section was opened at the Polish embassy in 1991. The old embassy is now apparently deserted and for rent.

So they were safer under Saddam too. Amazing

Anyone know the purpose of this 80 football field embassy in Iraq? Why do they need SO MUCH PRESENCE?

iraqi endeavors have shitty oversight. the warmongers and zionistas loot my tax money with impunity
some kuwaiti firm got the bulk of the contract to build. lemme see what i can dig up

iraqi endeavors have shitty oversight. the warmongers and zionistas loot my tax money with impunity
some kuwaiti firm got the bulk of the contract to build. lemme see what i can dig up

Revolutionaries make poor administrators. What interests me is that inspite of the exposure of the fake WMD claim [which were eventually discovered by Buffalo Roam here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62201)], the official policy is to feed the misinformation - we've gone from the price is worth it to bombing the Iraqis into democracy while understating their death count BUT there is still very little information about what is going on with the US interests there. Pilger sees China as the emerging bogeyman, but even with 50 planes and a fortress, Americans are hardly likely to start using their drones to target Chinese interests in the ME and Africa unless they are exceptionally stupid.

You may want to read this, I found it interesting
http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2011/07/12/last-american-out-of-baghdad-please-shut-off-the-lights/

After killing a million people, they are going to be as popular as Adolf Hitler in Jerusalem. I'm not sure how building their own city within the Iraqi capital is supposed to make it better

According to a USA today poll of Iraqis, 61% said that even considering all the hardships, ousting Saddam was worth it. Not sure how that squares with your Hitler comparison.

According to a USA today poll of

Did they find the WMDs yet?

We can be reasonably sure they are not in Iraq. There would have been no way to know that unless we invaded.

We can be reasonably sure they are not in Iraq. There would have been no way to know that unless we invaded.


did you scour the indian ocean for container ships drifting around aimlessly?


According to a USA today poll of Iraqis, 61% said that even considering all the hardships, ousting Saddam was worth it.


yes now they can scream allahu akbar at the sky and hack their women to death. of course they are happy


You may want to read this, I found it interesting
http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2011/07/12/last-american-out-of-baghdad-please-shut-off-the-lights/

Maybe the Embassy should consider cutting out the middleman and drilling for its own oil inside the compound.



hahaha

did you scour the indian ocean for container ships drifting around aimlessly?

Sure, that's easy.

It's the freaken money and oil.

If it were about WMD then we'd have invaded North Korea. They build nuclear bombs and SELL THEM to places like Crapistan. Surely, if ever the was an argument to be mounted that we needed to invade a nation, it'd be NK. The average height has dropped by 4 cm due to malnourishment. 3-5 million people died of starvation.

Iraq is about the OIL.

Maybe the Embassy should consider cutting out the middleman and drilling for its own oil inside the compound.



hahaha

I was referring to this part, which was news to me


Lastly, it is amusing to note that while the US Embassy trucks its fuel into Baghdad by road from Kuwait (average cost is $18 a gallon), Iraq proper buys a lot of its fuel directly from Iran.

adoucettes improved electricity in Iraq

http://wemeantwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/powerlines.jpg

Yes, interesting point you have there. So why are Americans interested in building a fortified and self sufficient city state in Iraq? What is the apparent purpose for such?

I'm not seeing what the big mystery is. The USA has deep, wide-ranging relations with Iraq. You can go ahead and visit the website of the US embassy in Iraq if you want more details:

http://iraq.usembassy.gov/

In particular, you may be interested in the overview of US-Iraq relations:

http://iraq.usembassy.gov/american-iraqi.html

and also the Strategic Framework Agreement that forms the basis of relations:

http://photos.state.gov/libraries/iraq/216651/US-IRAQ/us-iraq-sfa-en.pdf

Similarly, I'll note that the US diplomatic mission to India is among the largest in the world - the embassy in New Delhi takes up 28 acres, without even considering the 4 other consular offices there. The staff is also rather large. Is this also indicative of a nefarious system of covert imperial control? Or could it just be that big countries with complex relations, require considerable staff?

I'm not getting the impression that you have much of a feel for what embassies actually do, nor what is an appropriate size for such. I don't think you've ever considered those questions to speak of, up until the moment you decided you needed to make the size of the embassy a central feature of your revolutionary rhetoric. Which just happens to be when the US troops are leaving (the embassy has been there for years already). This is a fairly pathetic rear-guard action, from what I can tell. The troops go home, and instead of breathing a sigh of relief, you launch a conspiracy theoretical attack on American civilian engagement. Where do you think that's going to get you?

It's the freaken money and oil.

If it were about WMD then we'd have invaded North Korea. They build nuclear bombs and SELL THEM to places like Crapistan. Surely, if ever the was an argument to be mounted that we needed to invade a nation, it'd be NK. The average height has dropped by 4 cm due to malnourishment. 3-5 million people died of starvation.

Iraq is about the OIL.

Yeah, but they have a real army, not the devastated post-Kuwait army that Saddam had.

Yeah, but they have a real army, not the devastated post-Kuwait army that Saddam had.


umm
they were armed with wmd

I'm not seeing what the big mystery is. The USA has deep, wide-ranging relations with Iraq. You can go ahead and visit the website of the US embassy in Iraq if you want more details:


indeed
and if you want more info.....

http://usembassy.gov/topsecretcables

Similarly, I'll note that the US diplomatic mission to India is among the largest in the world - the embassy in New Delhi takes up 28 acres, without even considering the 4 other consular offices there. The staff is also rather large. Is this also indicative of a nefarious system of covert imperial control? Or could it just be that big countries with complex relations, require considerable staff?

I'm not getting the impression that you have much of a feel for what embassies actually do, nor what is an appropriate size for such. I don't think you've ever considered those questions to speak of, up until the moment you decided you needed to make the size of the embassy a central feature of your revolutionary rhetoric. Which just happens to be when the US troops are leaving (the embassy has been there for years already). This is a fairly pathetic rear-guard action, from what I can tell. The troops go home, and instead of breathing a sigh of relief, you launch a conspiracy theoretical attack on American civilian engagement. Where do you think that's going to get you?


I'm naturally suspicious of troops that go home but leave behind a city state full of merchants of war -


Upon which assurance of your royal love I have given my general command to all the kingdoms and ports of my dominions to receive all the merchants of the English nation as the subjects of my friend; that in what place soever they choose to live, they may have free liberty without any restraint; and at what port soever they shall arrive, that neither Portugal nor any other shall dare to molest their quiet; and in what city soever they shall have residence, I have commanded all my governors and captains to give them freedom answerable to their own desires; to sell, buy, and to transport into their country at their pleasure.

I'm naturally suspicious of troops that go home but leave behind a city state full of merchants of war -

Good for you.

Good for you.

Especially when they pretend to be friends


For confirmation of our love and friendship, I desire your Majesty to command your merchants to bring in their ships of all sorts of rarities and rich goods fit for my palace; and that you be pleased to send me your royal letters by every opportunity, that I may rejoice in your health and prosperous affairs; that our friendship may be interchanged and eternal.

I'm naturally suspicious of troops that go home but leave behind a city state full of merchants of war -

Except it's not SAM.

There are 31 million Iraqis.

A large and well equipped Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Armed_Forces

There are 1,000 or so Americans and when our troops leave at the end of the year, a minor security force.

We are in Iraq now ONLY at their pleasure.

Or you could consider what was said at the dedication:

The opening ceremony was led by Ambassador Ryan Crocker and attended by US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

Mr Talabani thanked the US for helping to create a democratic Iraq "which will serve as a model for other peoples of the eastern world",

Arthur

It's the freaken money and oil.

If it were about WMD then we'd have invaded North Korea. They build nuclear bombs and SELL THEM to places like Crapistan. Surely, if ever the was an argument to be mounted that we needed to invade a nation, it'd be NK. The average height has dropped by 4 cm due to malnourishment. 3-5 million people died of starvation.

Iraq is about the OIL.

Well first of all we would have to do it alone.
Second we could find the Chinese/Russians against us and so invading Korea would come at a FAR higher price.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea

So no it isn't about the oil.

Arthur

improved electricity in Iraq

Yeah SAM, the figures don't lie.

They have nearly twice as much electricity today in Iraq as they did before the war.

Arthur

iraqi endeavors have shitty oversight. the warmongers and zionistas loot my tax money with impunity
some kuwaiti firm got the bulk of the contract to build. lemme see what i can dig up

Nope, your representatives voted for it.
Overwhelmingly.

Monday, October 24, 2011
Local
Monday, October 24, 2011

CNMI hails Obama's decision to bring home troops from Iraq
.

So now the US will just have a private army in place to insure its financial and other interests. This change eliminates soldiers coming home in body bags, but does little morally in relation to the occupation.

It's the freaken money and oil.

If it were about WMD then we'd have invaded North Korea. They build nuclear bombs and SELL THEM to places like Crapistan. Surely, if ever the was an argument to be mounted that we needed to invade a nation, it'd be NK. The average height has dropped by 4 cm due to malnourishment. 3-5 million people died of starvation.

Iraq is about the OIL.Yes, but also the enormous transfer of public taxpayer funds to private companies like Haliburton for rebuilding, much of it no bid contracts. It was also a giant experiment and shift towards making the US military privitized - which tossed more money at friends of the admin. A military presence in the area was also one of the goals - also for all and domination in other places in the Mideast.

But....

One huge issue is opening markets. The Neo Cons view Muslim countries as not fully utilizable markets. They want in. Now there are really in, in one more chunk of the mideast.

Well first of all we would have to do it alone.
Second we could find the Chinese/Russians against us and so invading Korea would come at a FAR higher price.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea

So no it isn't about the oil.

ArthurLet me see if I have you correct. NK with it's pitiful half starved army, that sells NUCLEAR WEAPON technology to Crapistan is negotiated with, but Iraq, who had no WMD did need to be invaded...and tens of thousands of Americans' lives destroyed, families destroyed, bodies mangled... all for our protection... because they might one day... WHAT? Invade? Meanwhile NK sells nukes to the highest bidder and we can't pull China and Russia on side?

That really makes zero sense.

Iraq has oil, NK has shit.

Yeah SAM, the figures don't lie.

They have nearly twice as much electricity today in Iraq as they did before the war.

ArthurBefore the sanctions Iraq was a secular wealthy society. Wasn't perfect, sure as hell was a lot better than KSA or Crapistan.

Let me see if I have you correct. NK with it's pitiful half starved army, that sells NUCLEAR WEAPON technology to Crapistan is negotiated with, but Iraq, who had no WMD did need to be invaded...and tens of thousands of Americans' lives destroyed, families destroyed, bodies mangled... all for our protection... because they might one day... WHAT? Invade? Meanwhile NK sells nukes to the highest bidder and we can't pull China and Russia on side?

That really makes zero sense.

Iraq has oil, NK has shit.

No, we've been at war with NK before, they are a formidable enemy.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/North-Korea-Military-Parade-65th-Anniversary-Workers-Party.jpg

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

They likely have nukes and while they are unlikely to be able to get one to our shores they could make a mess of South Korea or Japan.

Arthur

Before the sanctions Iraq was a secular wealthy society. Wasn't perfect, sure as hell was a lot better than KSA or Crapistan.

Oh BS.

Since the peak of 1980, the nominal GDP of Iraq steadily shrunk to $12.3 billion in 2000. (it's over $100 Billion now)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq

That was mainly because of Saddam's very costly wars with their neighbors.

Of course from the 90s on it was mainly because of the Sanctions, but Saddam was responsible for those as well.

Arthur

So now the US will just have a private army in place to insure its financial and other interests. This change eliminates soldiers coming home in body bags, but does little morally in relation to the occupation.

BS, 1,000 embassy staff is NOT an occupation in a country of over 30 million people and and Army/Police force of about 1 million.

Arthur

No, we've been at war with NK before, they are a formidable enemy.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/North-Korea-Military-Parade-65th-Anniversary-Workers-Party.jpg

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

They likely have nukes and while they are unlikely to be able to get one to our shores they could make a mess of South Korea or Japan.

ArthurYou REALLY believe that? The ALL powerful North Korea? NK probably doesn't have enough fuel to run their military for a week. They actually had to reduce the height requirements for recruits as the people are shrinking due to starving. Not to mention the rulers starved more the 3 million to DEATH. Secondly, they SOLD NUKES TO CRAPISTAN!!!! Iraq didn't to jack shit. Nothing.



Iraq had oil, NK has jack shit. That's why Iraq was invaded and remains occupied and dependent on the USA whereas NK continues to sell nuke secrets and material all around the world.