Democratic approach of the USA to relations with Iraq.

#1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...foreign-reserves-in-military-deal-841407.html

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.
Interesting what is the cost of a word said in Washington? It appears that the cost is about zero (a good lesson for other countries).

The US had previously denied it wanted permanent bases in Iraq, but American negotiators argue that so long as there is an Iraqi perimeter fence, even if it is manned by only one Iraqi soldier, around a US installation, then Iraq and not the US is in charge.

The US has security agreements with many countries, but none are occupied by 151,000 US soldiers as is Iraq. The US is not even willing to tell the government in Baghdad what American forces are entering or leaving Iraq, apparently because it fears the government will inform the Iranians, said an Iraqi source.
From formal point of view Iraqi oil (and money that it gives) belong to Iraqis. Really...

The fact that Iraq's financial reserves, increasing rapidly because of the high price of oil, continue to be held in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is another legacy of international sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Under the UN mandate, oil revenues must be placed in the Development Fund for Iraq which is in the bank.

The funds are under the control of the Iraqi government, though the US Treasury has strong influence on the form in which the reserves are held.

Iraqi officials say that, last year, they wanted to diversify their holdings out of the dollar, as it depreciated, into other assets, such as the euro, more likely to hold their value. This was vetoed by the US Treasury because American officials feared it would show lack of confidence in the dollar.
Of course it is the most democratic, market approach.
 
#2
the Independent had the front page headline as the US wanting 50 bases in Iraq, I can't even think what they'd do with 50 bases ina apeacetime enviroment? It seems like Iraq is about to become the 49th US state.
 
#6
Does he US Military/Industrio Complex not require a War or constant state of agitation to maintain it's self serving goals ?
john
 
#8
Is it really that difficult to understand?

The Iraq war is currently running around 500 billion dollars US. Does anyone really not understand the will of the US to protect a very expensive investment?

Sergey, at it again for the FSB.

The big bad US is stealing Iraqs riches no doubt right?

Perhaps we should focus on Russia's strong arm tactics.
 
#9
ghost_us
Is it really that difficult to understand?

The Iraq war is currently running around 500 billion dollars US. Does anyone really not understand the will of the US to protect a very expensive investment?
No its not difficult to understand.
Its just some of us have serious reservations about a nation that launched an aggressive war on a raft of lies actually profiting from it.
And what you need to bear in mind is that the cost of the war was borne by the taxpayer but any profit made will be made and kept by the private sector.

Not even cheap petrol at the pump out of it. Haven't you got it yet?
Surely you must have twigged by now that we the public , in our own way, have been victims of this war as well as the Iraqis, no?
 
#10
I've said this before and I'll say it again - treat anything written by Patrick Cockburn with a pinch of salt. Either he has sources that literally no one else on the planet has, or he makes 'deductions' based on 'evidence' to support his own agenda.
 
#11
parapauk said:
I've said this before and I'll say it again - treat anything written by Patrick Cockburn with a pinch of salt. Either he has sources that literally no one else on the planet has, or he makes 'deductions' based on 'evidence' to support his own agenda.
Apart from being brave enough to live outside the green zone, Patrick Cockburn, is one of the most solid and dependable of journalists writing about Iraq. I would have thought that it was apparent to anyone who had read enough of his dispatches that he works to the highest journalistic standards. Bearing that in mind and the independence from propriety control that he enjoys I'm surprised to find someone suggest that he might twist evidence to suit a particular agenda.

Perhaps Parapauk you might like to enlighten us by describing exactly what you think P. Cockburn's agenda might be.
 
#13
Perhaps Parapauk you might like to enlighten us by describing exactly what you think P. Cockburn's agenda might be.

He is a paranoid left-wing conspiracy theorist that sees ill-intent around ever corner. He is the poster boy for the Independent newspaper degenerating from a respectable newspaper to a cover-to-cover opinion piece. His reporting from Iraq that simultaniously contradicts everything we hear and involves him 'bravely' living outside the green zone must lead to questions as to why he is being 'protected', by who, and to what end. I don't care how many times he's visited Iraq, you can't dodge trouble for that long without having an 'in' with those that cause it.

He is also one of the few people on earth to be orientated towards the left yet denies the single most important issue of our time, global warming.

Plus, as Christopher Hitchens is his arch enemy, that makes Cockburn my enemy too :D
 
#14
parapauk said:
He is a paranoid left-wing conspiracy theorist that sees ill-intent around ever corner.
He is also one of the few people on earth to be orientated towards the left yet denies the single most important issue of our time, global warming.
Plus, as Christopher Hitchens is his arch enemy, that makes Cockburn my enemy too :D
Is it your way of saying: he is right, of course, but I don't want to know because it's not flattering and also because "an enemy of my friend is my enemy"?
 
#15
Is it your way of saying: he is right, of course, but I don't want to know because it's not flattering and also because "an enemy of my friend is my enemy"?
Er, no. There are far better journalists than he who paint unflattering pictures of topics I have stands on but also command my respect. I believe that while no article can ever be truly objective, it is a mark of good reporting to present the facts without letting your own agenda seep through.

And with regards to Hitchins, if the best Cockburn can come up with is to call him a "self-serving, fat-assed, chain-smoking, drunken, opportunistic, cynical contrarian", you KNOW the person doing the insulting has nothing going for them, and that the person being commented on has them over a barrel.
 
#16
parapauk said:
Perhaps Parapauk you might like to enlighten us by describing exactly what you think P. Cockburn's agenda might be.

He is a paranoid left-wing conspiracy theorist that sees ill-intent around ever corner. He is the poster boy for the Independent newspaper degenerating from a respectable newspaper to a cover-to-cover opinion piece. His reporting from Iraq that simultaniously contradicts everything we hear and involves him 'bravely' living outside the green zone must lead to questions as to why he is being 'protected', by who, and to what end. I don't care how many times he's visited Iraq, you can't dodge trouble for that long without having an 'in' with those that cause it.

He is also one of the few people on earth to be orientated towards the left yet denies the single most important issue of our time, global warming.

Plus, as Christopher Hitchens is his arch enemy, that makes Cockburn my enemy too :D
Wrong on all counts! Cockburn might be uncomfortable, but he’s uncomfortable to the Left and to the Right alike. He reports things as he sees them in a way that emphasises humanity, freedom and democracy, and is, thus, something of a rapidly disappearing rarity in today’s meeja world. Whether yon (his) views align with your personal political tendencies is up to you.

But you already appear to have nailed your colours to the yardarm when you state: “as Hitchens is his arch-enemy (there’s a hyphen in there, fella), that makes him my enemy too”. Just to remind you; Hitchens was the “poster-boy” of the Left, before he discovered there was much more dough to be made on the other side of the fence.

As the Jamaicans say; “avva t’ink abowe’ tit, man!”.

MsG
 
#17
parapauk said:
And with regards to Hitchins, if the best Cockburn can come up with is to call him a "self-serving, fat-assed, chain-smoking, drunken, opportunistic, cynical contrarian", you KNOW the person doing the insulting has nothing going for them, and that the person being commented on has them over a barrel.
Yes, but IS Hitchins a self-serving, fat-assed, chain-smoking, drunken, opportunistic, cynical contrarian?
 
#18
But you already appear to have nailed your colours to the yardarm when you state: “as Hitchens is his arch-enemy (there’s a hyphen in there, fella), that makes him my enemy too”. Just to remind you; Hitchens was the “poster-boy” of the Left, before he discovered there was much more dough to be made on the other side of the fence.
I'm fully aware of Hitchin's history, and frankly his ability to evolve his views as opposed to sticking dogmaticaly to a one-dimensional view of the world is something to be admired. And your view that he follows the money in forming of the opinions is a personal view at best.

Saying that Cockburn also criticizes the left is dependent on what you mean as the 'left': the establishment left, or the radical left. He's hard on the former, but in terms of the latter he very much subscribes to the neo-con bashing, American 'empire' dross.
 
#19
Code:
Yes, but IS Hitchins a self-serving, fat-assed, chain-smoking, drunken, opportunistic, cynical contrarian?
Well he is a fat-assed, chain-smoking drunk. My point is though, why is Cockburn, who is presumably so sure of his arguments, resorting to cheap shots that have no bearing on the debate?
 
#20
parapauk said:
Perhaps Parapauk you might like to enlighten us by describing exactly what you think P. Cockburn's agenda might be.

He is a paranoid left-wing conspiracy theorist that sees ill-intent around ever corner. He is the poster boy for the Independent newspaper degenerating from a respectable newspaper to a cover-to-cover opinion piece. His reporting from Iraq that simultaniously contradicts everything we hear and involves him 'bravely' living outside the green zone must lead to questions as to why he is being 'protected', by who, and to what end. I don't care how many times he's visited Iraq, you can't dodge trouble for that long without having an 'in' with those that cause it.

He is also one of the few people on earth to be orientated towards the left yet denies the single most important issue of our time, global warming.

Plus, as Christopher Hitchens is his arch enemy, that makes Cockburn my enemy too :D
All newspapers are opinion pieces. All newspapers choose to cover stories or portray them in a certain way because of their particular historic political position or to reflect their owner's/reader's outlook. The Independent is a frequent champion of environmental issues and other left-leaning idealisms but it is no way a mouthpiece of the Government (The Sun/Guardian) or rabidly right wing (Daily Mail). I've always found Cockburn's analysis fairly consistent and whilst I by no means agree with all of his conclusions on Iraq etc I have never felt that he is pushing any kind of agenda. I like the Indy and always take what I read with a pinch of salt.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top