Democratic approach of the USA to relations with Iraq.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jun 7, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    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).

    From formal point of view Iraqi oil (and money that it gives) belong to Iraqis. Really...

    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.
  3. Oil field security staff maybe?
  4. Or maybe US doesn't want peacetime in Iraq?
  5. When they can make more money from peace than they can from war they will want peace right enough.
    But until then, you pick up your pack soldier and keep walking. :D
  6. Does he US Military/Industrio Complex not require a War or constant state of agitation to maintain it's self serving goals ?
  7. Sure does guv.
    War, its what makes the world go round.
  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
    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. 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.
  12. Are the 50 bases also there in order to keep pressure on Iran?

  13. 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. 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. 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.