Comments on: U.S. Warns Iraq To Accept Security Deal

White House Predicts "Real Consequences" If Iraqis Reject Troop Agreement

[lastdance128]

Tuesday, 12 April 2005
Iraq''s Baath Party Revival to Follow .... The Bush Model

Note: A copy of the Arabic original of the memo translated below was discovered
during a recent raid on a Baath Party safe house in Bagdad.

Date: 1 April 2005 - From: Committee to Construct the Future
Subject : Path to Absolute Control: The Bush Model

Summary : We propose to reconstruct the Baath Party according to principles
evolved by the Republican Party under the leadership of President George W. Bush.

He%u2019s all democracy all the time in public, but the goal brazenly enunciated by his
chief tactician Carl Rove* is pure Baath: the achievement and perpetuation of an
unchallengeable one party state.

The Republicans are, well on the way to achieving a single party dictatorship crowned
by a President ruling by executive order.

As we Baathists face the challenge of regaining power under a new American-sponsored
constitution, it behooves us to follow the steps, below, which show how the Bush White
House has consolidated its power in Washington

Research : Iraq''s Baath Party Revival to Follow Bush Model
(copy and paste Google)

[lastdance128]

On May 30, 2007
Vice President Cheney''s deputy assistant for national security affairs
Joseph Wood, rushed to Baku, Azerbaijan.

He had a single message : Washington intended to persist with the policy
of opening direct access to Central Asian oil and gas,
Bypassing Iran and Russian territory and Russian pipelines

In late July when Chevron (Condoleezza Rice, was a director of Chevron)
Announced its intention to open an office in Ashgabat and participate in
the development of the New Caspian Sea pipelines.
(In order to capture the central Asian oil market)

VP Cheney and Condoleezza Rice delivered the contracts

Russian Leader Putin and Ahmadinejad ; Both Warned :
The Western Nations shouldn''t pursue oil pipeline projects in the area.
If they weren''t backed by regional powers.

[chris32324]

and if the iraqis dont sign,,whatta ya gunna do,,invade,kill thousands of innocents,inprison thousand of innocents,steal their assests?,,,oh wait,,,already did that,and lost the respect of the entire world.

[samsel3]

The Times of India August 2007 reported : " Iran, Iraq signed an agreement to build pipelines for the transfer of Iraqi crude oil and oil products." Under the deal crude will be refined and sent back to Iraq. Bush opposed this agreement and wanted the Iraqi Parliment to accept and sign a U.S. designed oil law that would result in huge profits for BIG OIL.

Iraqi oil workers and 63% of Iraqis polled are opposed to the Bush law and prefer a hands off Iraq oil policy.

On January 26, 1998 in a letter to the President the PNAC asked Clinton to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein.. Clinton refused their request.

[samsel3]

The PNAC s goal has always been world market domination. In concert with Big Oil the Godfather of the PNAC George HW Bush held meetings with the Saudis at Walker Point in Maine prior to the Iraq invasion.

Iraq with the Russians were the Saudis main competition in global Oil markets. 2.5 million barrels a day of Iraqi crude was sold cheap in world markets angering the Saudis and Big Oil. Iraq was one of seven countries on the administrations hit list. Taking out Iraq did take out the competition enabling Big Oil and the Saudis free reign to drive oil prices up.
The Russians are not to blame. Blame the PNAC.......


Paul Wolfowitz,Don Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, George Bush, Richard Cheney, Eliot Cohen. Zalmay Khalilzad, Steve Forbes, Donald Kagan, Pete Rodman, Henry S Rowen, Dan Quale, William J.Bennett, Jeb Bush, they are all members of the PNAC Project for a New American Century.

[tincup356]

its ok people , don''t start fretting about all the screw ups, the people are going to vote the same congress back in next month and the monster will only get a new head in the form of the new president elected from the same congress that brought us all the misery we endure now.there are plenty of things congress can do to keep us poor Americans poor, mainly not represent us.Its just your great lobby dollars hard at work, to keep your representative from doing just that, represent you.

[cariboubarbi]

Ever try to take a bone from a dog?

Bush can''t let us leave Iraq cause he wants to protect their oil fields for our oil companies on the taxpayer''s dime.

The cost? Ten billion a month.

Why don''t these oil companies hire their own private security? Why should they? They own our government.

[lastdance128]

The White House said Iraqi security forces are incapable of keeping the peace
____

NAZI Fascist Bush and The NAZI Fascist Bush Crime Regime
Has a Very Bad Memory Problem ! !

It''s NOT About Keeping the Peace
It''s About : WMD''s

It''s NOT About Keeping the Peace
It''s About : "OIL"

It''s NOT About Keeping the Peace
It''s about : NO BID Government Contracts (Halliburton)

It''s NOT About Keeping the Peace
It''s About : Immunity to Blackwater - (Murder of Women and Children

It''s NOT About Keeping the Peace
It''s About : Immunity to Blackwater (Selling US Weapons to Terrorist Organizations)

It''s NOT About Keeping the Peace
It''s About : Granting Immunity to Kellogg, Brown & Root (Kidnapping-Sexual Assault)

[tincup356]

caribou barbie , the reason why bush wants to keep giving private security for next year is he would still make a profit off of it through his ties with the Carlyle group, who holds 85 % control of the pentagon budget for private security.the weekend of the bailout congress went behind closed doors and gave him 488 billion more just for next year.even after he leaves office he will make billions off the war Congress on both sides of the isle approved this, and people still cant see our whole government is corrupt.VOTE OUT EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT IN OFFICE, BOTH PARTIES.

[formrusmcsgt]

On one hand:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the draft agreement "both protects our troops and the Iraqi sovereignty" and would stand as it was negotiated.

And then this:

"We are not trying to pressure the Iraqis or force the Iraqis into signing anything they don''t wish to sign" Morrell said.

Now, which is it?

[samsel3]

The Times of India August 2007 reported : " Iran, Iraq signed an agreement to build pipelines for the transfer of Iraqi crude oil and oil products." Under the deal crude will be refined and sent back to Iraq. Bush opposed this agreement and wanted the Iraqi Parliment to accept and sign a U.S. designed oil law that would result in huge profits for BIG OIL.

Iraqi oil workers and 63% of Iraqis polled are opposed to the Bush law and prefer a hands off Iraq oil policy.

On January 26, 1998 in a letter to the President the PNAC asked Clinton to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein.. Clinton refused their request.

[cariboubarbi]

Ever try to take a bone from a dog? Bush can''t let us leave Iraq cause he wants to protect their oil fields for our oil companies on the taxpayer''s dime.

The cost? Ten billion a month. Why don''t these oil companies hire their own private security? Why should they? They own our government.

[notfooled]

The Bush/Cheney crime syndicate is trying to ram yet another criminal act down everyone''s throat, as if 911, 2 wars, and 700 billion dollars isn''t enough, they gotta hold an entire country hostage.

A million dead humans is simply not enough - we must stay and murder thousands more.

Since their making roughly a million dollars per exterminated human, it only makes sense to stay and try to hold on to the bloodmoney pot of gold.

When do the trials for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity start?

[n8yvn29]

Is this the -OUT- that Bush and his neocon cronies have been looking for: to get out of Iraq and save face after having squandered the lives of 4000 plus Americans and over a million Iraqis (not to mention the billions and billions of tax-payer dollars) in a war based upon lies and misrepresentations?

[brianbwb-2009]

"It''s time for the Iraqis to step up to the plate and take a decision," Wood said. He insisted that the administration had yet to hear anything official from the Iraqi government on its position or its suggestions for possible amendments."

Oh? I distinctly remember two years ago hearing Iraq say "the US can leave anytime it wants", and more recently agreeing with the timetable as proposed by Mr. Obama.

"I understand the Iraqis themselves recognize they are not ready to operate without the coalition forces yet," Rice said.

We all know the severe limitations on Rice''s ability to understand anything. It might not be a bad idea for Rice to continue traveling outside the jurisdiction of the US citizen''s arrest squads.

We should hound her for the rest of her treasonous life, educate her on the subject of how to treat genocide propagandists.

[brianbwb-2009]

Let''s see, the choices for Iraq are,

1. accept at least three more years of US occupation, murder, kidnapping, rape, torture, theft of their oil resources, or,

2. wait until the mandate expires on December 31, then with the full Iraqi, US, and international legal authority, order the US out.

Hmm, tough choice...not...

[juwboy]

Demongirl60:

You should also ask yourself why Moslem suicide bombers kill infidels so they can be rewarded with 72 VIRGINS when they get to Paradise.

Surley, 72 hot, h@rny, voluptuous, EXPERIENCED babes would give them a much better time!

[kmkej14]

that is perhaps the importance of democracy to allow the people within a sovereign land to decide their own decisions...so long as they take into consideration past action to get themto that point of freedom

[kmkej14]

Vietnam technology was leaps ahead of accuracy in terms of point contact and lethality (setting aside the carpet bombings and Agent Orange)....but now we have poisoned feed for our livestock

[kmkej14]

the legal basis for being in Iraq stems from the post invasion period after Saadam Hussein (pardon spelling).

The dismantling of the fourth largest army in the world has many parallels to the Prussian army of the 19th century.

As far as "real consquences," to attempt to put a value on sentient life would perhaps be a brazen risk at defying the Will of God (however your belief(s) may exist).