These Iraqis don't want the U.S. to stay

they don't want maliki and bush to force through the status of forces agreement...

from juan cole...

Thousands of followers of Shiite leader Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr peacefully protested across southern Iraq on Friday, according to McClatchy. They prayed and then stood silently in solidarity against the security agreement being negotiated by PM Nuri al-Maliki with George W. Bush.

Sadrists Demonstrate in Kufa


Sadrists Demonstrate in Kufa

more from professor cole...

On both the Iraqi and American side, this agreement is being characterized as a mere understanding between two executives. It is not being categorized as a treaty and there is no plan to submit it either to the Iraqi parliament or to the US Congress. It seems that the Bush team hopes it will take on the force of law just by virtue of existing and having been signed by the two leaders.

[...]

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that there is broad Sunni and Shiite uneasiness with the agreement, even inside Iraqi governing circles.

Al-Hayat says that those familiar with the current draft of the agreement says that it speaks of the establishment of 400 US military sites and bases through the country, of legal immunity for American troops and citizens, and an abrogation of any undertakings previously made, to share in the reconstruction of the country.

Another source told al-Hayat that US Ambassador Ryan Crocker is pressing for language permitting permanent US bases, and removal of other language forbidding the US to attack a third country from Iraqi soil. (This source does not sound reliable to me. US officials have repeatedly said they do not want "permanent" bases, and the provision disallowing the use of Iraqi soil as a launching pad for one country to attack another is in the Iraqi constitution.

so, if ambassador crocker is pressing for u.s. bases, listen to senior iraq advisor at the u.s. state department, david satterfield, categorically deny it in this al jazeera interview...



somebody's lyin' through their teeth and, given the past seven-plus years of the bush administration, i'm not inclined to point the finger at al-hayat...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Iranian weapons in Iraq...? Do tell...!

gareth porter doing what he does best - honest, shoe-leather, professional journalism...

The U.S. military command in Iraq continues to talk about an alleged pipeline of Iranian weapons to Iraqi Shiites opposing the U.S. occupation, implying that they have become dependent on Iran for indirect-fire weapons and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

But U.S. officials have failed thus far to provide evidence that would support that claim, and a long-delayed U.S. military report on Iranian arms is unlikely to offer any data on what proportion of the weapons in the hands of Shiite fighters are from Iran and what proportion comes from purchases on the open market.

When Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner was asked that question at a briefing May 8, he did not answer it directly. Instead Bergner reverted to a standard U.S. military line that these groups "could not do what they're doing without the support of foreign support [sic]." Then he defined "foreign support" to include training and funding as well as weapons, implicitly conceding that he did not have much of a case based on weapons alone.

Bergner's refusal to address that question reflects a fundamental problem with the U.S. claims about Iranian weapons in Iraq: if there are indeed any Iranian rockets and mortars, and RPGs in the Mahdi Army's arsenal of stand-off weapons, they represent an insignificant part of it.

Reports by the U.S. command in Iraq over the past 15 months cited only a handful of Iranian weapons out of hundreds counted in caches found in Shiite areas. Nearly 700 mortars and rockets were reported by specific caliber size, along with a handful of RPGs, in nearly two dozen caches. Of that total, only four rockets were reported as being of Iranian origin, and another 15 were listed as possibly being Iranian.

that sorry-assed gang of criminals currently occupying the white house is still trying to lay the groundwork for attacking iran...

p.s. not that it has the slightest bearing on this post, but, ironically enough, i had lunch yesterday at an iranian restaurant...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

As painful and heartbreaking as it is, as a country, we simply MUST face the reality of what we're doing

Two-year-old Ali Hussein is pulled from the rubble of
his family's home in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City
in Baghdad, Iraq on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. The child,
who later died in hospital, was in one of four homes
allegedly destroyed by U.S. missiles. More than two
dozen people were killed when Shiite militants ambushed
a U.S. patrol in Baghdad's embattled Sadr City district,
bringing the death toll in area on Tuesday to more than
30, a U.S. military spokesman and Iraqi officials said.
(AP Photo/Karim Kadim)



Ridh Hadi places his two-year old
nephew, Ali Hussein, into a coffin in
the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad,
Iraq on Wednesday, April 30, 2008. The child
died on Tuesday after U.S. forces struck
back at militia fighters with 200-pound
(90-kilogram) guided rockets that
devastated at least three buildings in the
densely packed district that serves as the
Baghdad base for the powerful Mahdi
Army militia.
(AP Photo/ Karim Kadim)

helen thomas...

Some readers resented The Washington Post for publishing an Associated Press photograph of a critically wounded Iraqi child being lifted from the rubble of his home in Baghdad’s Sadr City “after a U.S. airstrike.”

Two-year-old Ali Hussein later died in a hospital.

As the saying goes, the picture was worth a thousand words because it showed the true horrors of this war.

Neither side is immune from the killing of Iraqi civilians. But Americans should be aware of their own responsibility for inflicting death and pain on the innocent.

damn right...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Why they hate us...

meanwhile, in that country that sits right on the other side of iran from where i'm sitting now in afghanistan...

from yahoo news...


Ridh Hadi places his two-year old nephew,
Ali Hussein, into a coffin in the Shiite
stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq
on Wednesday, April 30, 2008. The child
died on Tuesday after U.S. forces struck
back at militia fighters with 200-pound
(90-kilogram) guided rockets that
devastated at least three buildings in the
densely packed district that serves as the
Baghdad base for the powerful Mahdi
Army militia.
(AP Photo/ Karim Kadim)

from the sf chronicle...

The U.S. Army said they were militants. Sadr City residents said at least some were civilians, and photographs showed the dust-covered body of at least one child being pulled from a mountain of rubble after Tuesday's fighting.

Whatever the facts, at least 28 people were dead after the four-hour battle, the latest deadly showdown between U.S. and Iraqi forces and Shiite Muslim militiamen over recent weeks.

Based on the photographs, it appeared that at least one of the dead was a civilian. In its captions, the Associated Press identified the boy in the bloodied shorts being carried from the ruins of a house as 2-year-old Ali Hussein.

The brother-in-law of an Iraqi journalist who works with the Los Angeles Times also was reported killed. The victim recently had moved his family out of the neighborhood because of the fighting.

The destruction and death toll underscored the intensity of fighting in Sadr City, where U.S. forces are pursuing militants who often operate from the narrow alleyways and crowded residential sectors of the sprawling Shiite stronghold. Clashes have occurred there nearly every day since the end of March, when an Iraqi military crackdown on Shiite militias sparked an uprising by fighters loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

With many of Sadr City's main roads peppered with roadside bombs and its side streets too narrow for U.S. tanks or other heavy vehicles to navigate, U.S. forces often call in air strikes or use guided rockets to hit their targets.

Locals say civilians often are caught in the chaos.

the last thing in this world any human being wants to do is to lay a two year-old boy into a coffin... that it took place as a result of being bombed by your so-called "liberators" is painful beyond imagining...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial expansion" - Paul Craig Roberts on why the U.S. is bankrupting itself for Iraq

roberts' explanation strikes me as too simplistic and it also begs another question... what's in it for the u.s...? or, to be specific, what goodies does "greater israel" offer to the mostly-jewish neocons here in the u.s. who are so hell-bent on supporting iraq and, in roberts' view, buttressing israel...?

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

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

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

[...]

The more likely explanation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq is the neoconservative Bush regime's commitment to the defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel. Israel hopes to steal all of the West Bank and southern Lebanon for its territorial expansion. An American colonial regime in Iraq not only buttresses Israel from attack, but also can pressure Syria and Iran not to support the Palestinians and Lebanese. The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial expansion. Americans are dying and bleeding to death financially for Israel. Bush's "war on terror" is a hoax that serves to cover U.S. intervention in the Middle East on behalf of "greater Israel."

i'm going to stick with the explanation i've been touting for several years...

yes, the bush administration supports israel, but it's for a much larger purpose than the creation of a "greater israel"... first of all, keeping in mind that the rulers of israel and their neo-con brethren in the u.s. do not equate with the jewish religion any more than the fundamentalist christian nut-jobs in the u.s. equate with christianity, the "unholy alliance" that's playing out here is for nothing more and nothing less than the full global consolidation and control of power and money...

the folks that pull the strings of the bush administration, the israeli government and the neo-cons, are the same super-rich elites you will find behind the defense industries, the mega transnational corporations, the global investment houses, the giant banking organizations, and the governments of many other countries... they're not necessarily all working as a bloc, but they have, nonetheless, been slaving away ceaselessly for years to insure that they have the first, last and only say about the direction of global affairs...

these people learned a long time ago that war and the resultant chaos present extraordinary opportunities to increase their power and wealth... now that it's possible to maintain war and chaos as permanent conditions across the globe, they are finally able to consider fulfilling their dream of bringing all global wealth and power into their hands... war and chaos are merely strategic tools to achieve that dream as are world-wide food shortages which can, in turn, serve to provoke more war, more chaos and, thus, more opportunity...

also, let's be clear on one point... when roberts says americans are "bleeding to death financially" for israel and iraq, he fails to point out that the super-rich elites who are calling the shots - not just in the u.s., but around the world - are raking in the cash like there's no tomorrow... it may be trite and it may be a cliche, but, hey, it's true... follow the money...

what's not to understand...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The WaPo catapults the Bush administration Iran propaganda on page 1

what kind of hidden perks and bennies do you suppose the wapo reaps for splashing bush administration spin and talking points all over its front page...? there simply HAVE to be some, wouldn't you agree...?

Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials.

Evidence of an increase in Iranian weapons, training and direction for the Shiite militias that battled U.S. and Iraqi security forces in those two cities has fixed new U.S. attention on what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday called Tehran's "malign" influence, the officials said.

The intensified focus on Iran coincides with diminished emphasis on al-Qaeda in Iraq as the leading justification for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq.

she-e-e-e-eeeit, vern, you don't think they just GOTTA manufacture reasons to stay in iraq and to attack iran, do ya...? huh...? do ya...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments