digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

independent.co.uk — Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors. A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • EnigmaOX, on 06/05/2008, -6/+191shhhhhhh it's a secret
    • leetninja, on 06/05/2008, -7/+17buried as inaccurate ... this wasnt a secret ... we all knew this was going to happen ...
    • unreg, on 06/05/2008, -13/+6I like the complete lack of credible sourcing to the article.

      Nothing really surprising given the source.
      • Jlaugh, on 06/05/2008, -5/+1Funny, I've never seen a newspaper that sourced anything. It's not an academic paper, nor should it be held to that standard.
        • Laughsatyou, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7maybe you don't like your propaganda to be fact based, but I am pretty sure most of us do.
        • Jlaugh, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3I prefer no propaganda at all actually, however since nothing I've ever read in any American newspaper has ever been sourced and sometimes the sources are even "protected". So when someone says there's no source (I say no *****), their offering a red herring argument.
      • anachronaut, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6Patrick Cockburn is a well-known, well-respected journalist (same goes for his brothers Alexander and Andrew). You may not like where they're coming from politically but that doesn't change the fact that these guys are true journalists in the old school sense of the word.

        When a journalist has repeatedly proven to be credible, as the Cockburns have, I'm not really that worried about their sources in stories like this, because those people -- basically acting as whistleblowers -- are frequently going to wish to remain anonymous, and for very good reasons.

        Deep Throat's anonymity didn't make Woodward & Bernstein's story any less devastating, did it?
    • PoopStick, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6Well gas was 19 cents per gal in Iraq. Cant wait till the Mc Donalds opens up and they start serving McRibs in Iraq oh and Sausage McMuffins

      • Hangly, on 06/05/2008, -2/+19First they need to start serving up some McWater and McPower. Maybe some McTelephone Service too.
        • KarthVader, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7Shhhhhh...don't encourage McDonalds. We don't want them breaking out of their industry.

          Dug you up friend.
      • snappleman, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3that would give them McStomach aches.
      • pitlord, on 06/06/2008, -3/+2Exactly, a little bit of free market capitalism is exactly what a developing country needs. Luckily, the Iraqis are already catching on to the idea:
        http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifais_syEtJ4gnC ...
        So they are well on the road to financial independence. Why do you think the terrorists are so upset? The last thing they want is a free and democratic Iraq. It undermines their whole socialist agenda to have a successful, free-market, representative government in a Muslim country.
        (8^D
        • chicofaraby, on 06/06/2008, -1/+3You used the words "successful" and "free" in regards to Vichy Iraq?

          Yeah. Sure.
        • commernie, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1The terrorists are socialists?!? ROFL! Not even an idiot like Bush would say something so ridiculous.

          It would be the perfect enemy, though; a wet dream for the neocons. Imagine how much (more) money they could sucker out of gullible fools like yourself. All they'd have to say is "here come the commie-terrorists!" and they could control you like the mindless sheep that you are...
        • DalamarArgent, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Calling socialists terrorists, referring to what the US has as "free-market" and having the user name pitlord. Cheney I thought they banned you?
    • jozb, on 06/05/2008, -4/+3for those that haven't seen this interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y64XR36zsIM watch it.
      the whole war could have been prevented if we just talked.
      i don't know why bush didn't take this offer. it shows Bush is just plain dumb and puts Saddam above bush even if he killed his own people.
    • pitlord, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1The site is no longer responding. Is this a U.S. imposed media blackout or just the digg effect?
      o.O
    • richmomz, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Well, the new Vatican-sized embassy building kind of gave away our true intentions I think...
    • Vodd9, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1No, it's a surprise.
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=MzOpjBOzMqA
  • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -28/+274like all Empires, this Empire will also fall.
    • Snuff99, on 06/05/2008, -12/+59and another will take its place...

      and then we'll see if the American empire was as evil as some would have you believe...
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/05/2008, -8/+55It has only really been bad over the last few years - prior to that the US, on balance, was a good thing. But then the US started openly lying to the world, invading innocent nations, and taking a very strong adversarial position towards the rest of the planet.....

        That tends to create a bad vibe.

        • Enterprise8875, on 06/05/2008, -32/+14Innocent nations...really?

          Yea Iraq was a magic land of puppies and candy with no mass killings, rape, or genocide going on.

          No matter what you think of the war you can not call Iraq innocent.
        • BoneheadFarker, on 06/05/2008, -5/+26@Enterprise8875

          Right...because the Iraqi civilians really had a say in what was happening...
        • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -1/+41The US has been ***** with Middle Eastern and South American nations since the 50's (yes there are plenty of examples in SA that predate this). The only difference is that in this last 8 years, we have given up the pretense of being the good guys.

          Now am I saying that american imperialism is the most evil thing conceivable? Not at all, but I think our foreign policy of the last 60 years has been a miserable failure for the american people (which is all I pragmatically care about since I am one). Who has it benefited? Well, Kuwait and Israel certainly have. The MIC as well. Can anyone think of who else has benefited from 60 years of us dumping more than 50% of our taxes into a war machine that has accomplished ***** all since 1945?
        • the6thReplicant, on 06/05/2008, -3/+20Yeah I don 't think @Enterprise8875 understands that killing about 600,000 innocent people is OK because their dictator, which US/Europe supported and funded, wasn't as much of a lapdog as they thought (you need to leave real lapdog behavior to the British).

          Yep, no blow-back from this at all. Nope, none.

          *crosses fingers*
        • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -18/+2Right, the World is managed using "vibes"....

          And if you send out the wrong "vibes", the Easter Bunny gets pissed off and takes a c***p on your lawn manifesting the "karma" you so richly deserve....

          Back to sleep for you, Waiting2awake.... the world in which you dream is out of control without you...
        • solid12345, on 06/05/2008, -8/+10If you can shame the Germans and the Japanese for their actions in WW2 why can you not shame Iraqi Arabs for how they exploited and massacred the Kurds?

          So many leftists whine about what Israel does to the Palestinians yet that pales in comparison to the suffering the Arabs inflicted on their Kurdish neighbors.

          Oh and people speak about America "stealing" Arab oil but the fact is the Arabs stole the oil-rich fields of Kirkuk from the Kurds.
        • BoneheadFarker, on 06/05/2008, -2/+9@solid12345

          The Germans were not a problem for the Americans, despite what Hollywood tells you. It was British and Canadian soldiers that were the major force against the Germans, even after the US finally declared war. The US did not officially enter WW2 until Japan ran up and gave them a bloody nose. And when they did, the US responded by rounding up Japanese-Americans into internment camps and then nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

          Making a comparison between Iraq today and the Germans and Japanese of WW2 does not make sense. Iraq didn't attack the US, and the Kurds did not ask for help from the US. And I don't blame the Kurds for that, since it was the US that installed Saddam in the first place...
        • relic180, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5@solid

          And making assumptions about Germans and Japanese for what their ***** up governments did isn't correct either. I don't do it, and you're a piece of ***** if you do.

          What does that have to do with anything if Arabs did in fact "steal" the oil fields originally? Does that mean they've set a precedent that allows us to continue the trend of being ***** up towards one another?
        • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3US: Sure, I lie, but I lie to myself first.
          BTW it was disinformation out of Iraq that had our leaders believing that Saddam had control of WMDs. If someone lies to you, you believe it, then tell someone else, does that make you a liar? The whole matter was school-yard politics anyway.
          Saddam: I'm hiding a weapon that I'm going to use on you
          US: You're supposed to show that to the UN
          Saddam: I'm not gonna
          US: UN! Saddam's not showing everyone his toys
          UN: Well, if he says to us they're not there, what are we to do?
          US: You believe that lying bully? OK, I'll take care of it myself. Saddam, get rid of your weapons, now. I set you up as the big kid on your block, I can take you out.
          Saddam: Oh yeah? Not without UN sanction you're not.
          US: You're getting too big for your britches. ***** the UN. *punch*
          *Saddam knocked out, but the kids on Saddam's block, now free from his tyranny start fighting US*
          US: WTF! I freed you guys. *Now defending against attacks*
          Kid A: Well, I wanna be the big man, now. I can't do that with you here. *punch*
          Kid B: As far as I can tell your presence here means you're the big man now and I don't believe that you're not going to be worse than Saddam because if you beat him up you must be stronger and meaner. *punch*
          US: I'm just trying to make your neighborhood better for you. If you'll stop fighting me and amongst yourselves and I'll leave.
          Kid A: We don't need you. *punch*
          Kid B: I don't believe you, you did beat up that lying bully Saddam, that means your a bigger bully than him. *punch*
          US: Well, damned if I do damned if I don't. I thought this time I'd hang around and make sure you guys don't fight amongst yourselves, instead of getting the job done and leaving like I did for the Majudeen kids on the other end of town when the Rusky gang stepped into their territory. They still hate me for that. Just chill out and I'm gone.
          Kid A: I WON'T "chill out"! I don't have to do what you tell me! I'm mad just because you're still here.
          Kid B: I still don't believe you. You lied about Saddam having WMDs, you could still be lying to us. And why haven't you left yet? You're trying to take over!
          US: FOR ***** SAKE, STOP FIGHTING AND I'LL LEAVE! (ad infinitum)
        • BoneheadFarker, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1@ coyote1284

          That was good...but I think it might be the "I set you up as the big kid on your block" part that everyone has a problem with. Same with helping Afghanistan fight the Russians. Find the motives behind those incidents (and maybe the contras on Central America), and you will find the source of the problem...

      • rupaw, on 06/05/2008, -3/+4I never believed that America is an empire. If the US would be so powerful, why does it have all the problems with a 3rd world - UN sanction starved - country like Iraq. Afghanistan - maybe the poorest country in Asia is another example.
        Empires are supposed to be powerful. The US is not. But Bush somehow managed to get the bad reputation of the former Sowjetunion. Beats me how he accomplished this.
        • nycmac247, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7you are confusing the money people who own our gov't with people that give a s@!t
        • Sidzilla, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6You are confusing our compassion with weakness. The US is trying to limit collateral damage as much as possible. Despite the negative press the war gets, it was Iraq's own fault. Saddam lied about having weapons of mass destruction in an attempt to stave off his own neighbors. To admit he didn't have them would have been suicide, so he denied to the UN with a wink and a nudge, he refused inspectors the access they demanded, and he did everything in his power to leave the impression that he still had chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons. This lie fooled the entire world, not just the US. The US was just the only country with the guts to do anything about it. In any military struggle the US will win very quickly. Like the Terminator, its what we do.. it's all we do. If we were like Saddam there wouldn't be a problem in Iraq because we would just eradicate the civilians and set up shop ourselves, and if the UN didn't like it they could go ***** themselves. And yes, we are powerful enough to do this if we chose. We prefer not to kill off the civilians, so we fight house to house. It's like giving the Orkin man a little tiny harpoon and telling him to end a cockroach problem.
        • mlrigsby, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Not to be rude Sidzilla, but what exactly is your point? At best, you seem to be saying "hey, at least we're not as evil as we could be". Sure, Saddam was bad. Sure, he could have been more open with inspectors and more transparent with the UN. That is all 100% beside the point. By ignoring our allies and launching an illegal and (essentially) unilateral invasion, the US lost the ability to pass the buck morally. The hundreds of thousands who have died since the invasion are now our responsibility.
        • crowbar77, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4@sidzilla

          Than why did so many of the weapons inspectors quit after they US declared war? Despite what CNN tells you much of the rest of the world didn't believe they had WMD's and the US invaded because of ***** (aka fabricated) intelligence. The same thing almost happened with Iran.
      • Hangly, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Actually maybe not. Most of the rest of the world has about caught up to the West power-wise, so I don't think it will be possible again for a long time for one country or one region of the world to dominate all the others. More likely there will be a whole lot of mini nuclear empires.
      • BESTenemy, on 06/05/2008, -1/+17In early 1904 the switch of the British Royal Navy from coal powered to oil powered engines set the tune for the world geopolitics for the next 100 years. Germany - the leader in engineering at the time, had no oil producing colonies. It had to secure the path to prosperity by building the Orient Express line from Berlin to Baghdad. The act was met with opposition from every possible direction - the British, the Turks, the French, The Russians were all opposed to it cause they knew they could not outcompete Germany on equal terms, so the Allies started to sabotage the construction.

        The events led to the first forceful blowback - the WW1, and years of economic sanctions against Germany paved the way for the Weimar collapse and the coming to power of the Nazi government. The 2nd blowback was the WW2. Germany wanted to conduct business, but met with opposition it responded with hostility. Now we're messing with the Middle East trying to inhibit the development in oil-deprived Eastern Asia. Through that we're increasing instability and promoting the rise of anti-American foreign policy.

        We're establishing the setting for another retaliation against the artificial imbalances we've introduced since WW2.
        • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7Thank you for showing that there are still people out there that have history-based perspective rather than a viewpoint forged of nationalistic propaganda.
        • WTFppl, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4@Bestenemy, On the point you made- "The 2nd blowback was the WW2. Germany wanted to conduct business, but met with opposition -[by Italy]- it responded with hostility. Now we're messing with the Middle East trying to inhibit the development in oil-deprived Eastern"- Just wanted to put the [bracketed text] in there if some of the readers didn't know this part of history!
      • bono4u, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1all depends on the perspective
        ... are you in the club or are you only the servant/waiter
        ... bomb manufacturer, bomb deliverer, bomb recipient

        perhaps the state looses but the cooperation's which made the big money will most likely join the next empire.
    • 9bpm9, on 06/05/2008, -9/+15Except the great empires of the past came to be by not having any allies and militarily taking over the world until their empire became to large and they couldn't police it.

      That is not how America came to be and they will not fall to the same faults of past empires simply because of technological advances to allow the policing of a large nation.
      • pintomp3, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6every empire falls in it's own way.
      • relic180, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4The faults of the human condition will always create a way for empires to crumble.
      • toowired77, on 06/05/2008, -1/+0sounds like what is happening in Iraq. What allies? Even with the technology, this war in Iraq has been a huge failure. Its not only wrong morally, its been done wrong technically. The British seemed to understand their "subjects" much better than the Americans. America seems to be driving drunk on this one.
        • McWombo, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1On that note, how much fun is driving drunk in GTA IV?
      • bono4u, on 06/06/2008, -0/+11st of all you admit America(i imply you think of the USA) is an empire, which is surly describes a part of reality but became real/reality through admitting it.

        2nd pintomp3 , relic180 are absolutely correct

        3rd "by not having any allies and militarily taking over the world until their empire became to large" this is where the US is struggling at the moment if you can't see it you are not living in the reality.

        4th "simply because of technological advances to allow the policing of a large nation"
        we will adept
    • Garlik, on 06/05/2008, -9/+16Like the Roman Empire, America has its own Nero; targeting a religious group after an attack to keep the blame off of himself, and by doing so, becoming a terrorist.
    • lisajohnson55, on 06/05/2008, -10/+11Bush is a ******* idiot and is the root of 90% of our problems.
      • mrjoshua28, on 06/05/2008, -9/+7I'm not going to digg down your comment because I'm hoping that you're an 11 year old trying to have an opinion.
        • lisajohnson55, on 06/05/2008, -7/+1mrjoshua28-
          Are you serious?
          If you still think that Bush should be in office then you are the 11 year old. (Though I doubt even many 11 year olds believe that.)
          Bush is reponsible for the Iraq War, and for keeping us in Iraq even up till today.
          He's repsonsible for our wire tapping.
          He's responsible for our worsening economy due to Iraq.
          He's responsible for making pretty much every other country think that we are idiots who can't keep our noses in our own business.
          Do I need to go on?
          Clearly he is the root of 90% of our problems, and I'm sorry that you don't have the brain capacity to see that.
        • relic180, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5@ lisajohnson
          Bush shouldn't be in office, and he's a numskull whose hasn't done much but wreak havoc on the infrastructure and global standing of our country. But to think that he's the core of 90% of our problems is naive.

          He's not necessarily responsible for the corruption of our political system and the foundation of corporate contributions that it functions on.
          He's not necessarily responsible for the rampant consumerist complacency of our population.
          He's not necessarily responsible for the racists undertones of politics and business.
          He's not necessarily responsible for the insane ultra-capitalist agenda of the top 1% (although he's most certainly cashing in on it).
          He's not necessarily responsible for the religious brainwashing that saturates the majority of voters.

          He's a big problem, but he's not the only one, and he's definitely not 90% of it.
        • lisajohnson55, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Relic180-
          Let me change my stance a little. I agree with you.
          Yes, I understand that he is not really 90% of our problems, hey he may not even be 40%, but he still is a very large problem, and the sooner he is out of office, the better.
        • Infidelcastr0, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3@relic180 He may not be directly responsible for the conditions that led to his presidency, but he is responsible for his own policies, and these policies have been nothing short of disastrous, disastrous to our economy, the Constitution, our standing in the world, and the list goes on. You are of course right that the conditions you listed are at the root of many of our problems, and they should be changed, as should our "president".
          @mrjoshua28 Dude get a ***** grip, anyone who thinks the Bush presidency has been anything but an unmitigated disaster clearly has their head buried in the sand.
        • mrjoshua28, on 06/05/2008, -2/+0I do have a grip, thanks very much. I just don't easily digest *****. I never said I liked Bush, I just don't jump on bandwagons because they say what I like to hear. Maybe you've got the loose grip...
        • gonzo1082, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2i'm dugg you down my friend, Bush is 99% of my problems. i can't wipe my ass the right way!!! thanks bush!!!
        • jimmiss, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Bush is the problem because he's not part of the solution. A president is supposed to fight for us all, not against us. Why do Americans accept less?
      • prahareturns, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1The extent of your naivety knows no bounds...
      • IVillageIdiot, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1President Bush is a trained Fighter Pilot, an MBA, and has made enough decisions to keep your ignorant asp from being incinerated in your sleep...

        When was the last time you ran out of gas, last week perhaps...?
    • protodon, on 06/05/2008, -3/+5Like the British Empire. Oh wait, thier age of conquest seems to have paid off for them. Oh well.
      • auto98, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3But it has kinda paid off - if England hadn't ever had the colonies & empire, it would have far less influence than it does even now
    • JonGalt, on 06/05/2008, -10/+4All of you are ***** wierdo retards. Blah Blah blah empire...blah bush this....blah...megastate(then you vote democrat or republican as if that will stall it)...blah communism is the answer....
    • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -9/+3Iraq was NEVER an empire... WTH...?!?!?!?

      OH, You mean America???? You've been swilling from a contaminated trough my friend!

      An “empire”, as you call it, commandeers whole countries and takes everything they own including, most importantly, their autonomy. The US doesn’t commandeer ANYTHING… AND WE NEVER TAKE AUTONOMY…. NOT EVEN IN IRAQ!!!!!

      When the Philippines asked us to leave was there a war in which we oppressed and subdued their liberties? We left one of the best bases in the Pacific upon request and without a shot being fired. Did we EVER (except during WWII) suspend their legislature, run their Police stations, appoint their officers and representatives??? NO?!?!?!??! THEY ALWAYS HAD THEIR OWN…!!!!

      When Saudi Arabia asked to into their country to protect them from Saddam, we obliged them and help them thwart and invasion where SH had already invaded TWO neighbors in 10 years and was threatening to invade a third, namely SA. Did we leave when asked?? YES?!?!?!? Was there a war or was it without a shot being fired??? Did we tear down their King and appoint a puppet or a stooge?? NO??!?!?!

      Germany, Japan, and Korea??? We stayed in Germany at GERMANY’s request whilst the “Bear” was roaming the woods, NOT because it benefited us, but because it benefited Germany! They got PO when we went to re-deploy from there to the ME. They WANTED us to stay, there is a lot of reliable coinage in the Military payroll (ask any US Rep./Sen. when a base moves from their district), and we had to back down because we need their help in the war.

      Japan, Do they have their own election? Do we appoint their officers? Do we run their utilities and their police stations??? Are they kicking us our with China and the DPRK only a few mile away???? NO?!??!?!?!?! I DON’T THINK SO!!!!!

      Korea, we want to move out of there like we wanted to re-deploy from Germany? Did we??? NO!!?!?!?!? They have an authenticated murdering megalomaniac on their border, who NOW has nukes thanks to the Clinton Administration’s lax and perhaps even complicit execution of security and diplomacy. Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ and has any army (it can’t really feed or pay) that is larger than most governments in the world waiting for the word to go. The only thing that keeps them back is the fact that the USA is deployed there and we would destroy them in a few months of conventional fighting and a few hours if it escalates (or devolves, depending on your point of view) into an exchange of nukes.

      SO… this “Empire” of which you so ignorantly speak, is one of mutual conveince or else major countries of the West are far more stupid than you, and don’t know what is good for them because they keep ask for our help and when THEY decide we should leave, we oblige.

      News Flash, you’re an idiot of the illiterate persuasion! Try reading… instead of listening to the Socialist. The Socialist trot this foil out EVERY time they are push from yet another country, and the west is invited in… DUH!??!?!??!

      PS Iraq, your latest “proof” of empire, held it’s FIRST elections in more than 30 years not more that a year ago. They held up signs thanking the USA and GWB for helping them. They have their own ELECTED PM, not one appointed by the US State Dept. They’re selling their own oil and are fighting each other over the profits when the Jihadist fail to blow up a pipeline. Which US GVT branch (EXACTLY) owns their oil and which US ships (EXACTLY) dock to steal it away to the USA and is THAT why gas is $4.00/ga???? Because we’re stealing what we would otherwise have to pay $100+/brl for???

      Only brainless morons would believe the US operates an “Empire”. And, since very few of you can even name the principal combatants engaged in WWII, or even who the current officers running the Departments of the Executive Branch, or even how many Departments there are, or the major dates of our founding, or how it was paid for, or three of it’s major battles, OR MUCH OF ANYTHING ELSE FOR THAT MATTER??!?!?!??!! I hasten to point out that IVillageIdiot, that’s me, is calling your ignorant blustering to PROVE, using actual facts preferably from the 20th and 21st centuries, the United States of America, is an Empire.

      And do try any of that collegiate hyperbole your professors shoved down your you throats, it’s all Marxist crap and I’m aware of it’s presence!
      • nkleffman, on 06/05/2008, -2/+7Wow. Take a breath and consider this:

        Our empire is more advanced than previous empires in that we follow the British system of what they called 'The Great Game' where they learned that it is better to install regimes with puppet leaders that give the false impression that they represent their people while in reality they take their orders from London.

        Just think about it, if you want true domination, do you openly rule over the conquered peoples which would cause resistance and thus weaken your profits from your empire, or do you give them the false impression that they rule, while truly pillaging their resources and raping their citizens?

        You seem to think you know a lot about history, and while I bet you know a lot of dates, names, and places, based on your above rant I propose that you have assumed many false conclusions based on your knowledge. I would suggest you look into reading Tragedy and Hope - A History of the World in Our Time by the late Professor Carroll Quigley. It's 1300 pages but I just finished it and I feel like I have a much better understanding of World War I and the cold war because of it.

        Here is a relevant quote:

        "The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."
      • sodade, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5Just because the US empire doesn't operate overtly like empires of old, doesn't mean we are not an empire. Installing puppet regimes = imperialism. You mention all the countries who have benefited from our military presence - what about the much longer list of nations who were ***** by US interventionism: El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, Iran (if you don't know about Operation Ajax - you're a ***** moron), Iraq, Palestine (if you don't think that Israel is a dominant force in American imperialism in the ME, you've obviously missed the recent examples of candidates bending over backwards to show that they will put Israel above the US), the list is pretty long - tell you what, why don't you think about it yourself.

        • coyote1284, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1How do you feel about Darfur? or other areas were America "didn't intervene quick enough" or "provide enough support"? Which do you want? An isolated US or and globally involved US?
      • Rammy912, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1.... go on.
    • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5All Hail Britannia!
    • oldgal, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1An excellent set of lectures (both conservative and liberal) on U.S. Foreign Policy that include American empire and imperialism: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/new_search.php?search_ ...
      • Joejackal, on 06/27/2008, -0/+0I had initially submitted this article and wanted to thank you for the hyperlink you were so kind to have shared. I had lived in the Bay Area of California for about 7 years. I particularly enjoyed the lecture given by a favorite author of my own, the linguist Noam Chomsky. I'd been introduced to his books at San Francisco State University. I was a little troubled however as I viewed this video that essentially represents a good outline of some of his informed thought. It seemed to me that portions of it had clearly been excerpted, interrupted or otherwise altered in some kind of auditory manner by exemption or exclusion. I'll look at the other lectures as I have an opportunity with anticipation. I guess I focused on that lecture as I'm currently reading a book of his called Hegemony Or Survival which I would recommend as well.
    • DiggMasterJ, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Before or after we build a moon-sized "Peace sphere"
    • jimmiss, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Well the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Unfortunately these guys are so big they are going to take everyone down with them.
  • debunkthelies, on 06/05/2008, -21/+51This too shall pass.
  • CoolHandLuke70, on 06/05/2008, -26/+70Gee, I thought our government, especially McSame, Billary, and the Obama Kid, want to get us out of Iraq! Folks, wake up! The American Empire is about to experience karma!
    • Sogladtobehere, on 06/05/2008, -10/+21I would suggest you do your homework on McSame. "Why not make it a hundred?"

      Your current government, the Neo-conservatives ruling the GOP, want to be in Iraq forever. How on Earth did you think they wanna get out? What world have you been living on for the last 6 years? Your Dems are too weak, and nobody listens to the third parties that don't pander to big oil, big pharmacy, and big war.
      • quesi, on 06/05/2008, -1/+32I find it offensive when he is referred to as McSame. He is obviously McWorse.
        • malex, on 06/05/2008, -10/+2Oh, I think that's stretching things a bit far.
        • Hangly, on 06/05/2008, -2/+13How about ***** insane who will probably start a McNuclear McWar with McChina.

        • datafeaster, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7. . . we are all McToast.
        • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Well, you can't make a Big McBreakfast without opening a few McEgg (immitation egg food) pints.
        • quesi, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I don't know if I should digg that last one... Ah, what the hell - that was funnier than balls.
      • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Marxist dogma...

        Try locating, "big encyclopedia", and read it...

    • ratbear, on 06/05/2008, -8/+2The face value of your rant was immediately discounted once I discovered you are a Paulite.
    • NoDrama, on 06/05/2008, -1/+3Obama wants us out. Hillary wanted us out if it would win her some votes. McCain wants us in, but is willing to say we could get out so long as he could sit on the fence and not lose the republican voters.
    • logload, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Thumbs-Up for the sweet candidate nicknames
  • jfaris, on 06/05/2008, -8/+111"President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated."...Exactly how would this constitute a victory??? I'm sure he'll give a god awful speech in front of a giant sign that reads "Victory", but how does locking us in Iraq permanently actually vindicate his administration's stupidity and ineptness? This is an obvious extension of his "permanent political campaign" governing philosophy and will fail iserably like the rest of his policies.
    • Bith8654, on 06/05/2008, -3/+2I dunno man I think he is just worried that after his term is over he won't get invited to any siiiiick parties.
    • Boondoggie, on 06/05/2008, -5/+5Perhaps you should read a little history. We'll be "locked" into Iraq like we're locked into Germany and South Korea -- perfectly able to get up and leave anytime we wish, but with the benefit of military bases in a part of the world that badly needs security.

      I realize it's not what the average digger wants to hear, but we've actually won in Iraq. AQ is pretty much dead, the militias are being co-opted by the government, and violence is at its lowest point since 2003. That's very inconvenient for the democratic candidates who need Iraq to be a quagmire -- Barry's judgement of being against the surge and saying it would fail not withstanding.

      Frankly, pulling out of Iraq and leaving no presence or bases behind would be a monumental folly. Oh wait, that's He Who Must Not be Middle Named's policy.

      For a bonus, how many Diggers know how long the military occupation of Japan and Germany lasted?
      • tweak567, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1Last I checked we went to war to get them WMDs!!! Oh and stop the terrorists of course!!!

        It's nice how the intention of the war has been altered so far that we can now call permanent occupation a victory.
    • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -3/+3I'll bet you can't name three "administration officials" (excluding the VP with whom many of you Lefties have an unusual psychological liaison), without looking them up?

      It’s always the nebulous “Administration” or the navel gazing foil of the universal lament, "permanent political campaign". Wake up!!!! If there was EVER a poster child for the “permanent campaign”, it would have to be the Clintons and their imbecile sycophants. GW ended up the President almost by accident. It wasn’t his life long ambition to become POTUS, he used to own a Baseball team, he was a fighter pilot and frat boy at college!!

      Where in that resume is, “I’m on a permanent campaign to dominate the world”????

      Neophyite…
    • nickrollout, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1To add to Boondoggie's eloquent post.
      The US is now in Iraq at the behest of the local democratically elected government in Iraq, and would have to leave if requested (there is also a UN resolution in 2006 that states the US should maintain a presence, but who really gives a *****) . Not only does the Iraqi government know that it is necessary for the US to maintain a presence, so does Obama. If Obama becomes President, he will have to make it appear that the US is pulling out in great numbers when in realty the numbers will come down by about the same amount as they would with McCain if he were president. This is because the reality on the ground will dictate troop numbers, not political rhetoric.
      So, sorry to break it to you idealistic diggers, but Obama will be more of the same, say one thing and do another, and spin, spin, spin.
      Commence digging down.....now.
  • guitarchitect, on 06/05/2008, -17/+143I really, really hope that Bush gets what's coming to him. This is ridiculous. If only he could be impeached...
    • roosevans, on 06/05/2008, -6/+46If I am not mistaken, last year Dennis Kuchinich was calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for the express purpose of keeping them form attacking Iran before they left office.
      • oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -3/+14Yeah, but you can't impeach someone because you are afraid of what they "might" do. Thought crime impeachment!!!
        But you could impeach them for all sorts of other reasons.
        • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -17/+6Such as?
        • Waiting2awake, on 06/05/2008, -6/+33Spying on Americans? Starting illegal wars? Lying about evidense? Outing a CIA agent? Complicit in the biggest terror attacks in US history?

          Just off the top of my head Jerger.
        • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -24/+8Monitoring the communications of suspected foreign terrorists to Americans that was approved by law, you mean?
          What is illegal about going to war with Senate approval?
          Complicity in the 9/11 attack is a crackpot conspiracy theory.
          I've seen nothing yet that proves he outed Plame, and even if he did, I'm not aware of any statue preventing the disclosure of information by the President, so it appears you've struck out here.
        • piradians, on 06/05/2008, -5/+13Preemptive impeachment. It would only be fair.
        • MadN, on 06/05/2008, -10/+5jerger23:
          "Complicity in the 9/11 attack is a crackpot conspiracy theory."

          And Trade Center 7; why did it implode, in it's own footprint, exactly like two other buildings?

          Drank the NeoCon Koolaid; did you?
        • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -5/+6WTC7 fell straight down...hmm, gravity prevented it from floating away? Exactly like every other building taller than a couple of stories would fall.
        • tidu, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2sorry guys, I don't agree with jerger but don't argue based on conspiracy theories. You might have legitimate points, but once you blurt out "OMG WTC7" you lose all credibility...
        • oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2@jerger23, it doesn't matter if the senate approved it. It doesn't matter if George Washington came back from the dead to approve it. The Constitution prohibits it. The Constitution was designed to protect us from government infringing on our rights.
          The Constitution doesn't care what is popular or what you can get away with . The Constitution says "I'm the line you won't cross. ***** with me and its on". Ok, actually lately the Constitution says "I'm the big pussy that no one's listening too anymore". But one day it'll be back in all its glory!!!
      • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2Wake up, you're having a wet dream... Denis also believes in little green men from outer space... he's a veritable fountain of reasoned judgment...

        He was also running for higher office and needed money and volunteers naïve enough to believe he had a hope in hell of making it, looks like he found at least a few….
        ...
        • mhaus, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1dude, your name is village idiot.
          shut the ***** up.
      • girwen, on 06/11/2008, -0/+0Methinks IvillageIdiot is living up to his handle
    • PolishLogic, on 06/05/2008, -1/+14That would require Congress to actually accomplish something that isn't a non-binding resolution.
    • moxley, on 06/05/2008, -4/+24What you have to understand is that it really isn't just Bush. While I agree his whole administration should be prosecuted for many, many crimes (both domestic and internationally) this problem goes much deeper. The system is poisoned.

      This administration could have NEVER done ANY of this had it not been for the complicity of the media, congress and Intelligence community, When I say complicity I don't mean that they all got together and planned it, at least, not in the case of the media. The mainstream media in the US is controlled by corporate/governmental/intelligence interests to a large degree. They do not control everything, not at all..but they do decide what will not be shown or talked about and who gets access, how a story will play, and other things

      The mainstream media is a propaganda machine to a large degree.

      Congress. With the exception of people like Ron Paul, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and a couple of others our congress (particularly the senate) has abdicated.

      Intelligence. The current people in control right now in the US are the same group who ran Iran/Contra, there are relations to watergate and the kennedy assasination and other 60s assassinations. Bush's family is linked directly to the Nazis and financing the third reich. The amount of crimes purpetrated against the American people and the rest of the world by this group of powerful men and families is astounding.

      We may be headed for something awful unless there are some serious changes.Obama sounds great and seems geniune, and though I think Ron Paul would have been far superior Obama is better than hillary or mc cain IMO.
      The thing is though, that he has supported some of the terrible legislation (like S1959) and seems to have some corporatist leanings at times. I hope he really will be all he says he will. I hope he really will provide change while sticking to the constitution, but to even get where he is in this day and age in America I don't you you can be untainted.
      • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -7/+2Oh yes... I knew I would find a pile of this in here.... "It's the SYSTEM man!!!!!".....

        If only we had a Socialist government, it would all be ok.....

        The Press is controlled by corporations and that must mean they are Republicans... THE NYT COMMITED AT LEAST TWO ACTS OF TREASON in this last episode of "It's the GOP in the Whitehouse". They are the MSM, the paper of record as I understand their masthead. Are they the puppets of the man??

        GWB (and family) is/are linked to Nazism??!!!?? You couldn't find a link to a Nazi if you were holding a first edition of Mein Kampf.

        You go on to excrete that there are "crimes" too numerous to count... Oh really, you're saying that in an election year, where the Dems are now going to need a gold-plated-miracle-from-God, and where they OWN both houses, that they are willfully failing to prosecute an impeachment because they're in on the gag too???

        You, astoundingly enough, profess and affinity for RP... then claim he has no chance (true enough), so.... you're going to go with Obama instead??!??!?!?!

        He's going to cede the Western world to Islam's care, tax us into OBLIVION, cut defense and pray for deliverance, Nationalize swaths of the economy, start 10-20 new GVT agencies because our noses and butts need more wiping and we aren't capable of doing it correctly, and compel us all into Public transit under the rubric of "Saving Earth for Humanity”, FROM Humanity??!?!?!?! WTH?!?!???!

        My fear is that I'm sure you, and others like you, will be voting for years to come... THAT... is frankly more terrifying than the Jihadist!


      • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2To be fair, everyone loved Hitler as he was rising to power. It was only after he proved to be a genocidal megalomanic that "Hitler" and "Nazi" became bad words.
    • FelixA9, on 06/05/2008, -17/+7You sound like every other "impeach Bush" dumbass out there. That is to say somebody needs to smack you up side the head with a clue-by-four. The democrats voted to go to war as well (except Obama who was probably still in diapers) in case you missed that bit.
      • Bith8654, on 06/05/2008, -6/+4Because they were mislead by pathetic intelligence in the midst of a patriotic fervor, how do you not see that?
        • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1But Bush knew the intelligence was false from the beginning?
    • the6thReplicant, on 06/05/2008, -6/+9>> I really, really hope that Bush gets what's coming to him.

      You mean nothing. The right-wing nutters will support Bush and Co. until the ends of the earth, just like the people who still support Nixon and even give jobs to his criminals.

      If the next President is a Democrat, or at least a non neocon, they will have to deal with a country with no money and no easy way out of Iraq. Secretly, I wish McCain would be president, and have to deal with the IEDs and the next attack on US soil. Oh, and the look on his face when he has to wiggle out of reinstating the Bush tax cuts, because...you know...it might bankrupt us.

      Of course, if a Democrat gets in, they will try and balance the budget, and the Republicans will spend tax-payers money to try and find something that they can label the President as "immoral". So then the talk back radios can go on and on about how embarrassing it is to have a President that is having an affair; has an illegitimate kid or whatever. Once again showing the neocons have no memory of their own stupidity and mistakes.

      Sorry for the stupid rant.
      • Laughsatyou, on 06/05/2008, -3/+1it was a very stupid rant.
      • guitarchitect, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0he has a point though - bush is leaving the next president with a LOT of work to do
    • ptheroux, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Impeachment simply means they lose their jobs. That's not enough of a punishment. They need to go to jail.
    • siobhankeogh, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1i would blow him if it got him impeached.
    • bipolarruledout, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0How Ironic.
  • MotherGinSling, on 06/05/2008, -5/+68"...would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November." That sure sounds extremely alarming to me.
    • blinkatron, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Yeah, sure sounds un-democratic to me
    • giskard88, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1Realy? it sounds extremely stupid to me. Unless he submits it to the senate for ratification, it is no more than an executive order, and as such, the new executive can do whatever the hell it wants once it is in power. The only chance bush has to continue this war is if he can somehow create the idea that we are on the cusp of success, and jam obama into commiting to keep troops there.
    • TantrooM, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Ok if the President has the power to do this type of thing, wouldn't the new president have the power to override it? It doesn't make any logical sense.
  • FewFAC, on 06/05/2008, -21/+29oh great, Iraq can be the new Japan. I wonder when the rapes of Iraqi civilians by US miltary will begin.
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/05/2008, -10/+63they already have.....
    • Gustomucho, on 06/05/2008, -2/+19Immunity to soldiers.. imagine that!
    • wrmjr, on 06/05/2008, -3/+22and don't forget immunity to contractors! Gotta keep Halliburton happy.
      • imgstacke, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1It's not Halliburton, but Blackwater... A License to Kill...
    • Conwaysb0718, on 06/05/2008, -4/+5you need to re-read your history if you think Iraq is in the same boat as Japan.
    • Boondoggie, on 06/05/2008, -3/+12Actually, Iraq becoming the new Japan would be an incredible result. A peaceful, prosperous democracy in the Middle East would be a wonderful outcome.

      Btw, another Haditha Marine was vindicated today. Sorry to rain on your world view that the American military is a bunch of rapists and thugs.
      • SamCatLu, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1You're just about all alone in hear with that brain Boondoggie!
    • Fullvinyl, on 06/05/2008, -4/+9Probably when US mercenary contractors start raping their own coworkers.

      Oh wait...
    • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -3/+5You mean to tell me I could have raped a Japanese schoolgirl and had no reprecussions while I was there!? Why didn't anyone tell me about the "One Free Rape" card that an American military member is supposed to get? At least I got to kill plenty of babies! God, I got such a bonner squeezing off a round into their little heads. I could have really used that rape card.
      ***** yeah, let's occupy Iraq FOREVER, and change the name to something like "Area XI"!
      /No replacements for overloaded sarcasm meters.
    • CoMpUtErITGuY, on 06/05/2008, -1/+0Does you mom work there?
    • Nudar, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Wow. That has to be the stupidest comparison ever. The US turned a country very similar to Iraq, with suicide bombers blinding believing the emperor was god and a much stronger military into one of the top countries in the world. If Iraq becomes the next Japan, it will make Bush look smarter than Einstein. That being said, I think hell will freeze over before Iraq comes close.
  • 666dorado, on 06/05/2008, -7/+13duh!!
    • Snuff99, on 06/05/2008, -3/+10really. why does this surprise anyone. blood has been spilled, treasure spent. the U.S is not leaving Iraq for a very long time.
    • harveywalbanger, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I knew they (Bush) wanted to make Iraq the 51st state when we went in.
  • guitarchitect, on 06/05/2008, -10/+85Actually forget about impeachment... we cannot forget about the "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" / NSPD-51, which John Olver said is a good reason not to invoke impeachment... he'd be opposed to any calls for impeachment because "...the current autocratic executive [Bush] would attack Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and call off the 2008 elections were the Democrats to initiate impeachment."

    Scary, scary stuff.
    • russr2001, on 06/05/2008, -2/+40we need to Abolish the "Homeland Security Dept." as well as Impeach ... but we are running out of time for the later. ... so these acts should be used as grounds for punishment after the term is over ... then send perpetrators to Gitmo as unlawful combatants
    • kemp34, on 06/05/2008, -1/+12You know what, ***** that.
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/05/2008, -0/+26What if the government made a law, and everyone just refused to follow it?

      • mekura, on 06/05/2008, -0/+29I feel like that's what Blackwater's for.
      • Pritchard, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6You can do that? /sarcasm
      • bipolarruledout, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Happens quite often.... perhaps not often enough.
    • SSCrow, on 06/05/2008, -0/+9I don't doubt that possibility.
      It seems like fiction that we would ever become a police state, but at the same time I feel its that sense of comforting idea that Police-states are fictional that leaves us prone to that happening.

      Plus if you Impeach Bush, Cheney is next in line.
    • Hangly, on 06/05/2008, -0/+6Yes, and then he's fighting a war on four fronts. The fourth front will be across the river from DC.

    • tbird1578, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1If you really think NSPD-51 says that, be sure you've read it.
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20 ...
      • NickLB, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2According to the link, it lays a basic groundwork for: "if we say there's an emergency, all agencies must defer to the executive." It also provides open interpretation of nearly all of its directives, which just opens the door for more "we say so... so there" policies. In short, very very easy to abuse.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4The Bush Admin no longer has the support to pull that off and survive it. 2 years ago sure, but now? It would be ugly.
    • SamCatLu, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Put the crack pipe down dude!
  • MrWashy, on 06/05/2008, -7/+64This simply appalls me as an American, and it is unacceptable. Unfortunately it is amazingly typical of our current administration who often use our own Constitution as toilet paper. Bush Co. like to use the word democracy, but to them it's really a joke. My rights, your rights, and the rights of other nations mean nothing to them. The only want their power and oil. Why half of my country can't see the obvious is beyond me.
    • quesi, on 06/05/2008, -2/+9The joke is that we are NOT a democracy, yet no major player will call us what we really are, let alone act like it.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As
    • oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -1/+16Right... That is completely backed up by fact! So we're to not impeach out of fear. Brilliant. Grow some balls and force Bush's hand. Declare martial law and lets get this party started.
      • Waiting2awake, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5I always knew there was something I respected about you. Exactly - if it is going to start, then lets start this. No more hiding, no more veiled threats, no more ....



        • jkoski, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Like the last half-hour of a Bond movie.
    • endlessoul, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2It's a lot more than half the country by now, brother.
    • Boondoggie, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2What in the Constitution is being violated?
    • Knabber, on 06/05/2008, -3/+1Because they want a black man in office! forget issues or merit, let's vote for insignificant attributes like skin color, number of sex partners, and how big one's "Crib" is.

      I personally think Obama is so great, he'll come down to my house, wash my dishes, clean my clothes, and put a brand new Toyota Hybrid in my garage.

      If you donate to him now, pay 60% taxes, and vote for him in November, you too can have what I'll have, because, afterall - we're ALL VICTIMS!
    • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1Meh, the next administration, assuming (on good certainty) a Democrat is elected, promises to nix a few other Amendments (2nd and 5th). Really, why do we need personal firearms in this day and age? Don't you trust your government to not become tyranous and that diplomacy will always bring desired results? If you don't agree, then you're a traitor to America and a racist/xenophobe, guilty until proven innocent.
      /parody
      • bono4u, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1sure, but wouldn't it be better the other way round

        police AND others may not have lethal weapons, the normal street police may have a big rubber stick or a tonfa, special forces may have tear gas and criminal investigators may have tasers.

        As there is always a possible threat through a bad government, the military should be hold by oath, constitution and law to never use their weapons against their own citizens.

        It perhaps would take 20 years transition time to get rid of the majority of the weapons, but i think afterwards there would be at least less fear of being shot.

        In other countries you have to pass at least quite a difficult test to get the gun license, so you can be sure not every moron gets a gun.
  • Kizilbash, on 06/05/2008, -9/+85Iraq is a colony, plain and simple.
    • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -4/+1Right, it's a petri dish full of nutrients used to grow colonies of the "Stupidicu Bacterous" strain of mind poising tripe like "Iraq is an occupied colony of the US and millions of US citizens are flocking there to afford themselves a slice of the fertile opportunity beckoning them the latest element of the empire"...

      ... and it would also appear that you've been mucking around in the lab again....
      • Swateke, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Surpression, invasion, no regards for human rights, exploitation of natural resources. Sounds like a colony to me!

        Oh wait... It isn't because the company executives and their families don't have to move to the colony like in the 50s/60s? So that doesn't make it a colony anymore?

        You're not gonna tell me that there aren't any companies running in Iraq right now ;).
    • diggrnumber1, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2it's just like the spheres of influence that Britain had during its own imperialist days.
      • Monolith4, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2I love it when people post information gleaned from their middle school history class as if its some erudite knowledge that the rest of us have never heard before.
      • northernmunky, on 06/06/2008, -1/+1The difference them and us is we never invaded countries, we planted flags on countries or territories that didnt already have an established form of government or unpopulated (i.e. Australia, HongKong, etc...), or in other cases negotiate ruling power in exchange for trade and protection from the British empire (i.e. India etc..)

        Hence the term we use in jest today 'but do you have a flag?'

        The British never invaded Europe and turned any part of it into British colonies because they were all already established (that was Nazi Germanys ambition). The British empire reigned at the end of the era where all nations and territories were all being discovered and claimed for whoever found them first.

        Now, that can't happen anymore... so America does it by force instead.
        • fucknuggets, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Battle of Plassey
        • bono4u, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1"we never invaded countries,"
          that made me smile

          "we planted flags on countries or territories that didn't already have an established form of government or unpopulated (i.e. Australia, HongKong, etc...),"
          depends on the perspective doesn't it?
          surly a country big and great as England has any right to control military and political aspects of any other country which is either smaller or is unpopulated or should i say underdeveloped and underpopulated. Underdeveloped and underpopulated are rather flexible terms, get the army in and the land will shortly be under/un -developed/-populated. A established form of government, what exactly do you think of? And are other forms of government less worthy as long they are grown historically?

          "or in other cases negotiate ruling power in exchange for trade and protection from the British empire (i.e. India etc..)"
          how kind of you, exchange their natural right to rule themselves against "you might not have any fear, because our troops which overrun you will know protect you" and we will bring in our products and get cheap raw materials. Well the BE was really a very kind one wasn't it?

          "The British never invaded Europe and turned any part of it into British colonies because they were all already established"
          go some time back in history and ask the french if they think the same. What about Scotland ? what about Ireland? aren't they part of Europe, too?

          i think it all depends on the perspective and myself tries to be very careful with absolute statements. All you said might be correct within your perspective but if take a wider look above the cupboard you may see it differently.

          that said, USA does not a better job, it is nearly the same, there are statistics which holds USA accountable for several million deaths since WWII. I don't know the numbers on the BE but i would imagine quite a lot in Africa.
    • SamCatLu, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Plain and simple...minded maybe. Tool.
  • ZandorMonkeyBoy, on 06/05/2008, -6/+43So what do we have to do to get Bush charged with Crimes Against Humanity at the Hague?
    • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -20/+7Find an actual crime to convict him of and provide real evidence that proves he committed said crime.
      • Altotus, on 06/05/2008, -3/+9The following war-crimes (crimes that others have been tried and convicted of): sanctioning the ill-treatment, torture, and murder of prisoners of war; failure to investigate and prosecute those involved in commission of those acts; killing surrendered combatants; failure to extend to prisoners the legal rights and protections of the belligerent party; forced extradition of civilians; and wanton destruction of property.

        Specifically, the war crimes apply to Bush personally if he was at any time made aware of the possibility of their commission, and he had the authority to prevent, or investigate and prosecute, and remediate same. There's quite a bit of documentary evidence that not only was he aware of these things, but several orders bearing his signature sanctioned quite a bit of the activity.

        There are nearly 100 statutes of US law that he's broken, many of which he's admitted to violating but claimed executive privilege against prosecution.

        • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -2/+3Altotus: Specific acts of these offenses?
          MadN:
          -The activities at Abu Ghraib were not sanctioned by the President and those responsible within the scope of the UCMJ and Federal Law were tried and convicted. If there was insufficient evidence for those tried and not convicted, that's on the U.S. justice system.
          -Genocide of the Ba'ath Party? Yes, the military, under President Bush eradicated the Ba'ath Party from Iraq, no question. But there is nothing that suggests that the President or the military conducted the execution of Ba'ath Party members.
          -U.S. citizens declared enemy combatants, are you seriously suggesting that U.S. citizens who travel to a foreign country to fight against the U.S. armed forces are not enemy combatants?
          -Maintaining a tenuous relationship with a foreign leader while encouraging that leader to abandon practices contrary to traditional human rights agreements hardly constitutes supporting a brutal dictatorship (but Saddam wasn't a genocidal maniac or anything, he deserved to stay in power and kill millions of his own countrymen and women and children)
          -You might be right, the Constitution may actually a piece of parchment, not a piece of paper, I can't remember or find a source.
          -Wrong, the calls were in the U.S., but they were on terrorists calling the U.S. from outside of the U.S. (or calls to the foreign terrorists originating from the U.S.); but really, why are you arguing that it's bad to listen in on terrorist phone calls?
          -Actually, prove that the President doesn't have the authority to disclose anything he wants (assuming that he did disclose her name).
          I don't work in a basement in the Pentagon, but that's always a good fallback accusation for someone who doesn't agree with you, isn't it?
      • MadN, on 06/05/2008, -4/+6"Find an actual crime to convict him of and provide real evidence that proves he committed said crime."
        Off the top of my head; there are many more:
        Torture at Abu Ghraib?
        Genocide of the Iraqi Bath party?
        Declaring US citizens "Enemy Combatants?
        Support for a brutal dictator in Saudi Arabia?
        By his own declaration, of the US Constitution as a "Piece of paper"?
        Spying, on not terrorist phone calls, but all calls in the US?
        And lastly:
        "Treason during a time of war", for revealing the name of an undercover CIA agent, during a time of "War on Terror"

        Do you have any more questions from your Pentagon basement office?
        • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Just in case you aren't reading down below:
          -The activities at Abu Ghraib were not sanctioned by the President and those responsible within the scope of the UCMJ and Federal Law were tried and convicted. If there was insufficient evidence for those tried and not convicted, that's on the U.S. justice system.
          -Genocide of the Ba'ath Party? Yes, the military, under President Bush eradicated the Ba'ath Party from Iraq, no question. But there is nothing that suggests that the President or the military conducted the execution of Ba'ath Party members.
          -U.S. citizens declared enemy combatants, are you seriously suggesting that U.S. citizens who travel to a foreign country to fight against the U.S. armed forces are not enemy combatants?
          -Maintaining a tenuous relationship with a foreign leader while encouraging that leader to abandon practices contrary to traditional human rights agreements hardly constitutes supporting a brutal dictatorship (but Saddam wasn't a genocidal maniac or anything, he deserved to stay in power and kill millions of his own countrymen and women and children)
          -You might be right, the Constitution may actually a piece of parchment, not a piece of paper, I can't remember or find a source.
          -Wrong, the calls were in the U.S., but they were on terrorists calling the U.S. from outside of the U.S. (or calls to the foreign terrorists originating from the U.S.); but really, why are you arguing that it's bad to listen in on terrorist phone calls?
          -Actually, prove that the President doesn't have the authority to disclose anything he wants (assuming that he did disclose her name).
          I don't work in a basement in the Pentagon, but that's always a good fallback accusation for someone who doesn't agree with you, isn't it?
        • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1"Genocide of the Iraqi Bath party?"
          You keep using that word (genocide). I do not think it means what you think it means.
    • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -6/+3At least one crime that isn't the product of delusion and hyperbole, would be a good staring point.

      A second would be to ask adults instead of the navel gazing dupes of the professorate that one finds stumbling around nearly every University in the US.

      On a personal note, you might want to try returning to planet Earth where reality can be resumed in progress at any time you feel free to climb out of bed and remove the poop draining from your ears....

      Just trying to help you with your problem… ;}
    • yayintertubes, on 06/06/2008, -1/+2Hang the prick with the same rope they used on Saddam. (and don't wash it)
    • northernmunky, on 06/06/2008, -1/+4The only countries in the world whicvh do not recognise the International Criminal Court are, Iraq, Israel, Libya, the People's Republic of China, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.

      Don't need to be a genius to figure out the odd one out.

      I should point out the US has threatened to attack Europe if any US citizen is ever held there.
  • EnigmaOX, on 06/05/2008, -7/+21Congratulations .. Iraq is officially the 51th state in the United states of america,,, iraqis are so proud now ..
    • serif69, on 06/05/2008, -1/+15Fifty oneth?
    • STKD, on 06/05/2008, -2/+6"Congratulations. Iraq is officially the 51st state in the United States of America. Iraqi's are so proud now. "

      `Fifty oneth` was the least of the problems in that statement, as can now be seen.
      • Fullvinyl, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2You still cocked up; you don't use an apostrophe for plural words.
    • giskard88, on 06/05/2008, -1/+4don't states get to vote?
    • IVillageIdiot, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Yip, now their voting and the secret police headquarters where some 1M of their family members or more, disappeared into the desert over the last 30 years, was blown to smithereenies.

      Though, admittedly, it isn't a picnic for them. They still have plenty to worry about ... like some group of neophyte doofs in the other 50 states voting in the latest incarnation of Nevel Chamberlain hell bent on winning an election even if it means surrendering the Western World to the Fourth Reich armed with nukes and missiles to carry them into the manufacturing and population centers of the infidel lands...

      If I were those guys, I would be worried about the mental prowess of my “fellow citizens”, that actual statehood.
    • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1No, they're just a territory, renamed "Area XI"; you know, 'cos USA is an empire and all.
      ALL HAIL AMERICANNA!
    • placidified, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2So...to live to American Dream i can go to Iraq?
      • EnigmaOX, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1soon you you'll be able to live the American dream everywhere
  • quesi, on 06/05/2008, -2/+38The giant embassy/base gave away the secret.
  • ProgressBar, on 06/05/2008, -3/+103What I want to know is how something like this doesn't require Senate approval... and why this NEVER makes news in US media?

    There really has been a corporate coup d'etat in this country and I worry for our future and weep for our honor.
    • Conwaysb0718, on 06/05/2008, -9/+1I love hors d'oeuvres!
    • oldhick, on 06/05/2008, -1/+18It did, the Congress gave the power to Bush unconstitutionally. Impeach your senators too.
    • jerger23, on 06/05/2008, -9/+6You have to prove the accuracy of the article before you can start rallying for the cause. The 'evidence' of this 'secret plan' is the speculative word of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an Iranian who just might have an agenda of his own.
    • Hangly, on 06/05/2008, -2/+5Because the press just didn't feel like it.
      They don't have to you know. They're a free press.
      What are you the boss of the press?? Is this a special bush?? Are you the kind of the forest???


      I need to sleep.
    • phoenixshard, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5Funny, I read a report that pretty much said the same thing on MSNBC, just with a different headline and worded differently.

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24988101/

      So much for that theory that the US media never reports on things like this.
      • uu2b, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4I don't know why you were buried, but that gets a +1 from me. Accurate.

        FT (MSNBC) A -
        "The deals would establish a long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States, and a legal basis to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

        Negotiations are intense, particularly over the longevity of military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and the legal status of civilian contractors such as the Blackwater security guards involved in a deadly confrontation that killed 17 Iraqi civilians last September.

        Public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Iraqis also widely view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty."
      • ProgressBar, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Good call... I guess what I'm amazed at is the lack of outrage over stuff like this given the great popularity of the war and current administration.
    • wyldraven, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1See "Status of Forces Agreements" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Forces_Agre ...

      Bush Doesn't Need Congress For Iraq Security Pact - http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives ...
    • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, because an un-approved plan must be a "secret" because it would have been widely broadcast from time of conception if it weren't "secret", but now that we all know about it, it MUST be "engraved in stone' policy already being implemented behind out backs, you know 'cos that idiot Bush is the mastermind behind the greatest conspiracy ever!
      /GWB is Kaiser Soze?
  • ElAssoWipo, on 06/05/2008, -4/+31This reminds me that I have to pick up the twenty foot tall neon sign that says "SECRET HIDEOUT" with a giant arrow pointing at my secret hideout.

    Don't give Bush so much credit. America has had it's eye on Iraq since the 50's.

    Even JFK tried to control it by having all leftists assassinated to make sure the Baath party (Saddam Hussein) took control of Iraq.
    • eigenweasel, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2The Baath are the leftists. They are Socialists, and in Syria they govern in alliance with communists.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1"In 1963, the Kennedy administration backed a coup against the government of Iraq headed by General Abdel Karim Kassem, who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. The CIA helped the new Baath Party government led by Abdul Salam Arif in ridding the country of suspected leftists and Communists. In a Baathist bloodbath, the government used lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the CIA, to systematically murder untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite — killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. The victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures.[29][30][31] According to an op-ed in the New York Times, the U.S. sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the U.S. supported against Kassem and then abandoned. American and UK oil and other interests, including Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum, were conducting business in Iraq.[29]"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Iraq

        The Baath entered Iraq by killing all communists and the monarchy.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Karim_Qassim
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Iraq
  • mrcoderga, on 06/05/2008, -0/+41A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.

    -- George Washington
    • giskard88, on 06/05/2008, -6/+1yes, and because someone said that hundreds of years ago in a totally different geopolitical environment it MUST be 100% relevant to today. Americans are far too obsessed with the opinions of their founding fathers, who while good and wise men, lived in a completely different time to the one we live in. the world is much smaller now than in washington's time, and it is imposible to seperate the affairs of one country from another in an environment where we are all so dependant on one another's exports, and a man can wake up in china and be in new york within a day.
      • Fullvinyl, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1And how EXACTLY does globalisation excuse a war and occupation of choice?
      • bono4u, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1"yes, and because someone said that hundreds of years ago in a totally different geopolitical environment it MUST be 100% relevant to today."
        No it must not, but it would be dump or at least very unwise if not even considering similarities or trying to bring those thoughts in balance with the presence. Never heard of "learning from the past"?

        "it is impossible to separate the affairs of one country from another in an environment where we are all so dependent on one another's exports"
        i think the difference here is between nationalism and corporatism, nations interest and corporations interest, the perspective of a citizen of a country and the perspective of an employe(e/r) of a firm.
        I didn't know Washington personally but i think he might have forseen some of those implications.
  • Conwaysb0718, on 06/05/2008, -4/+55Wow, everything a certain "you know who" was talking about and warning us against was deadly accurate and he was labeled a looney, isolationist crackpot.



    • Xephyr, on 06/05/2008, -1/+21RON PAUL!
    • humanerror, on 06/05/2008, -1/+6Some individuals in every society in every era have come out said a lot of things that were true but didn't fit in with accepted ideology.

      I wonder if there's a single example in all of human history where such people weren't either silenced or mocked and labeled insane.
    • je12u, on 06/05/2008, -6/+2Voldemort?
      • Guitarzan, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1This got dugg down? I mean come on.
    • Hangly, on 06/05/2008, -0/+13Well of course he was labeled a crackpot. He's a real threat to the establishment. I bet they hate his guts.

      Keep your eye out for other crackpots, they might be right about something too.
    • giskard88, on 06/05/2008, -10/+0a million monkeys typing can come up with a work of shakespear, and if one nutbag libertarian is given enough tv airtime he can be vaguely correct about something he says.
      • Conwaysb0718, on 06/05/2008, -1/+7correct about the economy... correct about the reasons behind 9/11... correct about a bloated, ineffectual government...

        yep, he's one vague sonofabitch.
        • NickLB, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0Bring on the privatized sidewalks!
          ...
          Wait, what?
    • soulmist, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I thought Rick James really was a crackpot...
  • Terrk, on 06/05/2008, -1/+23I TOTALLY did not see this coming!
    • known, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2An appeal to Americans:

      Please shun innocence and ignorance towards rest of the world.
    • slotimus, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3The Air Force icon by your name makes your comment that much better.
    • AllyOfReason, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1/sarcasm
    • DigitusAnonymus, on 06/05/2008, -4/+0Is that comment sarcastic? Cause I totally did not saw this coming either. I was like "hey, wait a ***** minute how long have we been in Irak?" I thought we had accomplished the mission but wow we still there. Thus, I'm voting for McCain, a true war hero. Because the way to end the war is not by withdrawing the troops, it is by WINNING THE WAR!! AND MCSAME WILL WIN IT !! ***** YEAH !!

      Digg me down if you agree!
      • petebert, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1i'm pretty sure we accomplished the mission in Germany, wonder when we're leaving?
  • jackieokennedy, on 06/05/2008, -20/+8Long live insurgency.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/05/2008, -16/+8Shut up Barack.
    • coyote1284, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I hope that means that you support this plan, because that's why we're still in Iraq. That's right, if you support the insugency, you support US occupation of Iraq and the continued defense spending. If they'd only figure out how to play nice (at least for a little while) we'd leave. It's pretty much that simple. We're not going to back down from a fight, at least while still under Republican administration. As dumb as that may seem, that's how it is. We're being attacked, we'll fight back, not run away and cry to the other countries 'cos we can't take care of a mess we made.
  • cointelproof, on 06/05/2008, -3/+18So much for the spreading of 'democracy', whatever that means nowadays.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/05/2008, -17/+9How much that the quoted "Iranian Leader" is the source of this false information.
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/05/2008, -5/+2False information huh? Well if you don't like it it must be true.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/05/2008, -1/+8How can a plan be 'secret' if it going to be openly debated by Iraq's parliment?
        • PolishLogic, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5Damn you....rational thought.....you might make heads explode by using that.
        • the6thReplicant, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5When it DOESN'T get debated in the US.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/05/2008, -1/+5SOFA agreements aren't treaties and don't require congressional approval.
  • toddcat, on 06/05/2008, -2/+9To quote Tom Petty, "even walls fall down."
  • Carl306, on 06/05/2008, -9/+31***** Bush. Seriously...
    • algoseek, on 06/05/2008, -0/+4Americans gave him a second term?
      • Daodos, on 06/05/2008, -2/+4No.... Diebold machines gave him a second term.... (Shady dealing gave him his first)
        • exgop, on 06/05/2008, -2/+2Koolaid alert Koolaid alert. Never mind all the dead people in Democratic areas that have bee voting for years after their demise.
        • bono4u, on 06/06/2008, -0/+2someone noticed that?
          ...
          ...
          ...
          and Bush is still IL presidente

          if someone of the USA citizen ever ever again will describe any country(other then their own) as a banana republic myself have to put their noses to two stolen elections and no one in jail or on the electric chair.
    • exgop, on 06/05/2008, -9/+3***** you coward
  • kemp34, on 06/05/2008, -2/+20I thought Bush was bringing democracy to Iraq? Looks like they want us to leave, will Bush dictate our military stays?
    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN043049 ...
    • nickrollout, on 06/06/2008, -1/+0Uhh, you new to politics?
      Sounds like political posturing to gain a better agreement in negotiations. Also, often in a democracy lawmakers appear to be in favor of a position to gain or maintain votes in a particular constituency. Look at Hillary and Obama's retoric on NAFTA, a perfect example. So it seems the Iraqis are learning really quick how democracy works.
      Wait until the end result of the negotiations to see what will really happen.
  • swrostmore, on 06/05/2008, -1/+21The Iraqi parliament is not pleased about this; a majority of them sent a letter to the US Congress pleading with them to not allow this to happen and implying that they intend to stall until Bush is out of office . Two Iraqi representatives also testified in the US congress yesterday, making it clear that they want a timetable for withdrawal as a precondition to any agreement.
    • workharderscum, on 06/05/2008, -0/+7All they are doing is trying to stall it? What hold does the white house have on them? (besides having 150k troops in the country)

      There's probably some fancy diplomatic way of phrasing it, but surely "***** you" is the only response any government worthy of the name can give to this abject surrender
    • rmxz, on 06/05/2008, -1/+2Sounds like the US is going to overthrow that government next, until it can pick a puppet that approves of the permanent bases there.
    • guanfenglin, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0naive Iraqi representatives....
    • IVillageIdiot, on 06/13/2008, -1/+1Did anyone ask to which faction the MINORITY (it was a small clique, not in the majority) belonged?

      Sunnis perhaps? Or is their parliament as seamless and unified as our Congress?

      Let me take a guess, it was a political stunt used to incite naive Americans during an election year for the purpose of helping to elect an administration that will surrender and fallback so that the second wave of the Islamist insurgency can try to take over again? HELLO?!?!?

      Those are some yapping dogs that will need to be watched.... especially since they have US surrender in common with the Dems.


  • mentallyinhell, on 06/05/2008, -0/+13That was a secret?
  • zebco, on 06/05/2008, -2/+25Rome, anyone? Bread and circuses, complete and total expansion of the empire? Massive abuses of political power that run rampant without checking by any other government branch? Gathering riches and money for the conquest (oil, gold, etc).
    This has all played out on a stage before. And I think we all know how it ended.
    • Conwaysb0718, on 06/05/2008, -5/+1Washington DC is moved to San Diego and is renamed McCainstantinople/Obamastantinople (take your pick)?
    • richnojutsu, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3Washington is sacked by the Iranians?
    • InThePants, on 06/05/2008, -1/+1Pizza!
    • freezeout, on 06/05/2008, -0/+5US puppet regimes don't go over very well in the Middle East
      same thing that happened in Iran will happen in Iraq
      once the Iraqis get fed up with the US puppet regime and the "licence to kill" contractors they will replace it with radical fundamentalists (sadly the only group with enough balls to throw the US out)
      • eryximachus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Iran was a British puppet state. It was the British who invaded the country due to the countries tacit, but neutral support of Germany during WWII.

        • bono4u, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1i have to admit i am one of those evil Germans :) but i still have to ask what exactly do you understand below "neutral support"? Sounds like a oxymoron, a bit paradox.
        • eryximachus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1The British still very much thought of the world economy as "the British Empire". States either were allies and traded exclusively with the Empire, or traded on the world market and traded with everyone and thus were considered potential enemies.

          The major strategic disadvantage of Germany was the fact it had no oil at all. Iran traded oil with Germany, but it traded oil with everyone. Sweden was a similar neutral country that, for a while, traded metals with both sides.

          In the end, it was a reasonable tactical decision. Germany ultimately was unable to mobilize its armor or air force due to fuel shortages, and millions of civilian deaths were largely attributed to the breakdown of the food distribution network in 1944-45. That said, it was a gross violation of the sovereignty of an ancient nation that had not attacked anyone in centuries. It is a major reason for Persian hostility to this day.