- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://www.globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/iraqiwar.wmv
Please see “Declaration of Peace.org”
http://declarationofpeace.org/campaign-updates/comprehensive-peace-plan-for-iraq-september-4-2
“Iraqi civilians are killed on a daily basis by U.S. military personnel at checkpoints, during house searches, and during U.S. air attacks, as well as during assaults and gun battles.”
A Nobel Laureate call for an Immediate and Total Withdrawal of all U.S. Troops, Coalition Forces, and Military Bases..
“Iraqi civilians are killed on a daily basis by U.S. military personnel at checkpoints, during house searches, and during U.S. air attacks, as well as during assaults and gun battles.”
“Behind the U.S. threats against Iran is the desire of the U.S. to be in control of the flow of oil from the Middle East, and for U.S. companies to have a part in developing Irans vast oil and gas reserves.
Iran has the second largest reserves of oil and natural gas in the world. ”
“Seventy-six percent of all Iraqis agree: The prime motivation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to control Iraqi oil. Iraq has the third-largest proven reserves of oil. Only 10% of the country has been explored, so there is potential for a lot more oil than is known today. Iraqs oil is of high quality and can be extracted at very low costs. In addition to oil, Iraq also has considerable natural gas reserves.”
Planning for the control of Iraqi oil by private oil companies started in early 2001, and plans were finalized before the invasion in March 2003.
The oil law that President Bush wants the Iraqis to pass would allocate the majority of the currently known oilfields, or 64% of the countrys known oil reserves, and all of Iraqs undiscovered reserves, for development by multinational corporations through long-term agreements.
A newly established Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council would have ultimate authority over contracts with oil companies. This Council would be made up of, among others, “executive managers of important related petroleum companies.”
Via the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the U.S. put pressure on the Iraqi government to draft an oil law favorable to private oil companies in return for the forgiveness of some of Iraqs crushing foreign debt, accumulated under Saddam Hussein.
The public and the Iraqi Parliament were given no part in drafting the oil law. When the law was finally submitted to Parliament for approval in early 2007, it was rejected. The oil law went back to the cabinet, which approved a new version at the beginning of July 2007. Parliament did not approve this new version before its summer recess, in spite of pressure by the U.S.”
from Fahrenheit 9/11:
“In the first month of the war, the U.S. and Britain dropped nealry 30,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq.
During that time, the U.S. also made 50 “precision” airstrikes against “high value targets”, including Saddam.All missed.”
apparently they were too busy blowing up the apartment buildings in Baghdad…
video: Killing Iraqis at night after you Illegally Invade their country
from the Comprehensive Peace Plan for Iraq Talking Points
The Declaration of Peace
Nine-Point
Comprehensive Peace Plan for Iraq
Talking Points
An End to All Funding for U.S. Military Operations in Iraq
The U.S. Congress has the constitutional power and authority to stop funding the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq, and instead to fund a safe, speedy and complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Cutting funding for the occupation is the most direct and the only effective way for Congress to assert its authority to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. No other resolutions or bills Congress may pass demanding an end to the occupation will have any legally binding effect on the Bush Administration. As long as Congress appropriates funds for the occupation, Congress gives its “implied consent” and therefore a legal basis for the President to continue the occupation.
Safe and Rapid Withdrawal of All U.S. Troops and Coalition Forces from Iraq, With No Future Deployments
A rapid, safe and complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops and coalition forces from Iraq – with no future deployments is necessary, for the following reasons:
The Iraqi people overwhelmingly oppose the occupation, as polls have shown for years.
Iraqi Parliamentarians want an end to the U.S. occupation of their country.
The presence of U.S. military forces is the reason for the existence of an armed Iraqi resistance. Of all the recorded attacks in Iraq, 75% are directed at occupation forces, 17% at Iraqi government forces, and the remainder at Iraqi civilians. The total number of all attacks has increased over the four years of occupation, and doubled just between 2005 and 2006.
The U.S. occupation has brought and continues to bring suicide terrorism to Iraq, with terrible consequences for the Iraqi people. Most of the suicide terrorist attacks are perpetrated by foreign nationals, who were radicalized by the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The U.S. military continues to fuel sectarian strife, mainly by arming and training Shiite dominated Iraqi military and police forces – some of them connected to Shiite militias and death squads – for fighting the mostly Sunni resistance. Recently the U.S. military has formed alliances with the Sunni resistance in fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, thereby creating the potential for heightening sectarian divisions by supplying arms to a wider range of groups.
U.S. military forces are responsible for large numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties. Iraqi civilians are killed on a daily basis by U.S. military personnel at checkpoints, during house searches, and during U.S. air attacks, as well as during assaults and gun battles.
In 2007, so-called “withdrawal” legislation was considered in the House and Senate. These bills and amendments only gave a timeline for withdrawal of combat troops, leaving possibly tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces, to “fight terrorists”, and to protect U.S. infrastructure.
As is suggested in some of the “withdrawal” legislation, the “redeployment” of U.S. troops to neighboring countries, or to a few bases within Iraq or Kurdistan, would very likely increase the use of U.S. air power, resulting in many more civilian casualties.
The presence of U.S. forces is the root cause of violence in Iraq, fueling the resistance, suicide terrorism and sectarian violence. Any attempt to restore peace and stability to Iraq has to start with removing the root cause of the violence. Only a complete withdrawal of all U.S. military forces will end Iraqi resistance, reduce the recruitment of suicide terrorists from other Muslim countries, and remove the fuel that the U.S. has been providing to the sectarian strife with its “divide and conquer” approach.
After withdrawing from Iraq, the United States should offer a series of actions that have the potential to start repairing the damage inflicted on Iraq by an unjust, illegal war and a disastrous occupation.
No Permanent U.S. Military Bases or Installations in Iraq
Permanent military bases have been an integral part of the invasion and occupation of Iraq from day one their construction began in 2003, and they are mostly completed. Bases in Saudi Arabia, established around the first Gulf War in 1991, are being replaced by bases in Iraq.
In spite of opposition from Congress and from the people of Iraq, U.S. base construction in Iraq is proceeding. An analysis of polling results published in January 2006 showed that of those Iraqis who approve of attacks on coalition forces, 90% believe that the U.S. plans to have bases in Iraq permanently, and 87% assume that the U.S. would refuse to leave even if asked to do so by the new Iraqi government.
Permanent U.S. military bases, and the immense U.S. “embassy” in Baghdad, the largest in the world, are clear signs to Iraqis that the U.S. intends to use their country as an operating base in an attempt to control Iraq and the region. U.S. military bases therefore have a destabilizing influence on the region.
Congress must take effective measures to stop the completion of long term U.S. military bases in Iraq, hand all existing bases over to the Iraqi government, move embassy staff to a smaller sized embassy in Baghdad, and start addressing the U.S. dependency on foreign oil and natural gas.
Support for an Iraqi-led Peace Process, Including a Peace Conference to Shape a Post-occupation Transition
Sectarian killings and terrorist attacks are taking an ever increasing toll on the civilian population in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled from their homes to escape death, torture and kidnapping.
The main focus of the U.S. military in Iraq now supposedly is to “stabilize” the country by quelling the civil war that is raging in Iraq, and preventing Iraqis from killing each other. However, the
situation in Iraq has gotten worse, not in spite of the U.S. presence and influence, but because of it. Attacks on occupation forces, on Iraqi security forces, and on Iraqi civilians all have continued to increase during the more than four years of occupation. There is no basis for any hope that a prolonged presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq will result in anything other than more violence.
Only a complete withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Iraq can create an opening for Iraqis to work towards reconciliation.
The Bush Administrations refusal to commit to a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal has been a stumbling block for two major Iraqi attempts at reconciliation: Prime Minister Nouri al-Malikis Plan for reconciliation proposed in June 2006, and the Cairo Reconciliation Conference in November 2005.
While no one knows for sure how Iraqis will deal with the horrible legacy of the occupation once coalition forces have left, there are some hopeful signs that violence will be reduced once the root cause of instability is removed. Recent polling results show:
· A majority of Iraqis support a central or federal government in Baghdad,
· Iraqis have more confidence in Iraqi security forces than in coalition troops, and do not support attacks on Iraqi security forces.
· 94% of Iraqis believe the separation of people along sectarian lines is a bad thing.
Neighboring countries have supported Iraq reconciliation efforts in the past, and are expected to be supportive after the U.S. leaves.
All of this bodes well for the prospects of Iraqi reconciliation after U.S. troop withdrawal.
Return Control of Iraqi Oil to the People of Iraq, as Well as Complete Sovereignty in their Economic and Political Affairs
Seventy-six percent of all Iraqis agree: The prime motivation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was to control Iraqi oil. Iraq has the third-largest proven reserves of oil. Only 10% of the country has been explored, so there is potential for a lot more oil than is known today. Iraqs oil is of high quality and can be extracted at very low costs. In addition to oil, Iraq also has considerable natural gas reserves.
During the invasion, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair made a public statement to reassure Iraqis of their “commitment to protect Iraq’s natural resources, as the patrimony of the people of Iraq, which should be used only for their benefit.”
Contrary to the preceding statement:
Planning for the control of Iraqi oil by private oil companies started in early 2001, and plans were finalized before the invasion in March 2003.
The oil law that President Bush wants the Iraqis to pass would allocate the majority of the currently known oilfields, or 64% of the countrys known oil reserves, and all of Iraqs undiscovered reserves, for development by multinational corporations through long-term agreements.
A newly established Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council would have ultimate authority over contracts with oil companies. This Council would be made up of, among others, “executive managers of important related petroleum companies.”
Via the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the U.S. put pressure on the Iraqi government to draft an oil law favorable to private oil companies in return for the forgiveness of some of Iraqs crushing foreign debt, accumulated under Saddam Hussein.
The public and the Iraqi Parliament were given no part in drafting the oil law. When the law was finally submitted to Parliament for approval in early 2007, it was rejected. The oil law went back to the cabinet, which approved a new version at the beginning of July 2007. Parliament did not approve this new version before its summer recess, in spite of pressure by the U.S.
Iraqis have been resisting the U.S. oil grab:
In 2003, resistance fighters began attacking oil pipelines, especially in the Sunni areas, and interrupted most of the northern export pipelines.
Oil Union workers refused to accept Bremers privatization of oil industry management.
The provisions of the proposed oil law have sparked widespread opposition in Iraq among oil workers, Parliamentarians, and the Iraq Freedom Congress.
As part of the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill that passed in May 2007, the U.S. Congress has adopted the “benchmarks” for Iraq that President Bush announced during his speech on January 10, 2007. The passage of a “hydrocarbon law”, falsely portrayed by the Administration and the media as a revenue sharing law, is one of those benchmarks. While the Bush Administration may be able to hide its intentions regarding Iraqs oil from the American people, the Iraqi people know what is at stake.
Decisions about Iraqs oil should be made by and for the benefit of the Iraqi people, not by U.S. policymakers.
Support for Reparations and Reconstruction to Address the Destruction Caused by the U.S. Invasion, Military Occupation, and Thirteen Years of Economic Sanctions
Because of the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq:
Many Iraqis have no source of safe drinking water and unreliable supplies of electricity.
Iraqis have been exposed to more radioactive dust and debris from the use of Depleted Uranium weapons.
At least 654,965 Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion and occupation of their country, and untold numbers of Iraqis have been wounded, tortured, and detained.
14-30% of children and adolescents in high-conflict areas may be suffering from PTSD.
About 1 million Iraqis fled their homes and are now “displaced within Iraq, over 2 million have fled the country.
National treasures from ancient biblical sites, to museums in Baghdad have been raided, damaged and destroyed.
There is 60-70% unemployment, the economic situation for women has worsened because of radical Islam, and many children are malnourished.
Reconstruction efforts paid for by U.S taxpayers have been plagued by poor construction quality, cost overruns, corruption, lack of oversight, and mismanagement. Many of the projects were not even completed before reconstruction money ran out.
The U.S. has a moral obligation to provide generous support, compensation, and reparations to the people of Iraq, to help them rebuild their homes, health care system, schools, and infrastructure, and to ease the suffering of those who have been wounded, tortured, illegally detained, orphaned, or widowed.
The costs of reconstruction and reparation programs would be a small fraction of what it will cost to continue the occupation.
Establish a U.S. “Peace Dividend” for Job Creation, Health Care, Education, Housing, and Other Vital Social Needs at Home
The costs of the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the U.S.:
More than 4,030 soldiers have been killed, and tens of thousands more have been wounded and traumatized in this war.
The Department of Defense has so far spent over $511 billion on the war and occupation of Iraq.
The total budget and economic costs of the Iraq invasion and occupation are estimated to exceed 3 trillion dollars, including veterans healthcare and disability payments, income losses, and replacement of military equipment used in Iraq.
There are also Opportunity Costs: Things that were not accomplished because money, resources, time and effort were directed towards the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Cutting war funds and ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq could generate a Peace Dividend if war funds are redirected and spent on public programs that:
Meet vital social needs,
Address the global challenges of climate change and peaking world oil supplies,
Address the U.S. dependency on foreign oil,
Promote international cooperation, Human Rights and the Rule of Law.
Increased Support for U.S. Veterans of the Iraq war
Many of the U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq have sustained multiple injuries, including loss of limbs, loss of eyesight and hearing, burns, brain damage, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). They will need treatment for a long time, and may never be able to return to a normal life. Soldiers suffering from PTSD are in danger of abusing drugs and alcohol, becoming homeless, and committing suicide.
The Veterans Administration (VA) has been inadequately funded and staffed to meet the needs of returning soldiers. Veterans in need of medical care or PTSD treatment, and those filing disability claims often have to face long wait times, and some will not receive any medical treatment through the VA because they are considered “affluent” at a family income of $30,000. The VA is accused of sometimes misclassifying PTSD claims as pre-existing personality disorders, leading to discharge and loss of medical and disability benefits.
A group of Iraq war veterans filed a law suit against the VA in July 2007, demanding prompt disability benefits, reduced wait time for medical care, and a boost in services for PTSD.
Adequate services must be provided to veterans of the Iraq war.
No War Against Iran or Any Other Nation
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush Administration has repeatedly given ominous signs of an impending attack on Iran.
Iran is a non-nuclear signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and has the right to build nuclear power plants and to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. U.S. intelligence agencies have seen no evidence for a secret nuclear weapons program, and stated in 2005 that even if there was one, Iran would be ten years from developing a nuclear weapon. In 2004, Iran offered negotiations on stopping its uranium enrichment program and normalizing relations with Israel in return for security guarantees from the U.S. and Israel. Since that offer was rejected, Iran resumed uranium enrichment.
Israel is known to possess the fourth most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world. Its conventional military is the most advanced in the region.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad does not have control over foreign policy. Foreign policy is in the hands of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has said that Iran supports the Arab League position on Israel-Palestine.
Recently, the Bush Administration has focused on unsubstantiated claims that the Iranian government is responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq by providing militias with sophisticated weaponry. The U.S. government has not provided proof of those allegations.
Behind the U.S. threats against Iran is the desire of the U.S. to be in control of the flow of oil from the Middle East, and for U.S. companies to have a part in developing Irans vast oil and gas reserves.
Iran has the second largest reserves of oil and natural gas in the world.
As with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a military assault on Iran would not resolve the underlying key issues affecting the national security of the U.S.: The Arab-Israeli conflict and the U.S. dependency on Middle East oil.
It is imperative that Congress withstands attempts by the Bush Administration to blame the worsening security situation in Iraq on the Iranian government, and to use Iraq as a staging ground for regime change in Iran.
________________________________________________________________________________
September 2007
Updated: April 14, 2008
For the full 65-page Comprehensive Peace Plan for Iraq, with detailed references,
see the download at The Declaration of Peace website: http://declarationofpeace.org/files/Comprehensive_Peace_Plan_for_Iraq_11-28-07.doc
The Declaration of Peace
http://declarationofpeace.org/
excerpt from Tony Benn interview with Saddam Hussein:
“Tony Benn: There are people who believe this present conflict is about oil, and I wonder if you say something about how you see the enormous oil reserves of Iraq being developed, first for the benefit of the people of Iraq and secondly for the needs of mankind.
Saddam Hussein: When we speak about oil in this part of the world – we are an integral part of the world – we have to deal with others in all aspects of life, economic as well as social, technical, scientific and other areas.
It seems that the authorities in the US are motivated by aggression that has been evident for more than a decade against the region. The first factor is the role of those influential people in the decision taken by the President of the US based on sympathy with the Zionist entity that was created at the expense of Palestine and its people and their humanity.
These people force the hand of the American administration by claiming that the Arabs pose a danger to Israel, without remembering their obligation to God and how the Palestinian people were driven out of their homeland.
The consecutive American administrations were led down a path of hostility against the people of this region, including our own nation and we are part of it. Those people and others have been telling the various US administrations, especially the current one, that if you want to control the world you need to control the oil.
Therefore the destruction of Iraq is a pre-requisite to controlling oil. That means the destruction of the Iraqi national identity, since the Iraqis are committed to their principles and rights according to international law and the UN charter.
It seems that this argument has appealed to some US administrations especially the current one that if they control the oil in the Middle East, they would be able to control the world. They could dictate to China the size of its economic growth and interfere in its education system and could do the same to Germany and France and perhaps to Russia and Japan.”
LAST YEAR:
“Iraqi police and witnesses in Sadr City said a bombardment by US helicopters and armoured vehicles killed nine civilians, including two women, and wounded six others. Men and young boys wept over wooden coffins covered with blankets, while women shrouded in black accused the Americans of attacking civilians.
Today’s raid was the latest in a series of strikes against Shia militias, which US commanders have said are responsible for an increasing number of attacks against American forces.”http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/08/usa.iraq1
THIS YEAR:
“The ongoing crackdown against Shiite extremists may have backfired when a relative of the prime minister was killed early Friday in a raid on Hindiyah, about 12 miles east of Karbala, local officials said. Ali Abdul-Hussein, said to be a cousin of al-Maliki, was shot dead in a raid conducted by 60 U.S. soldiers supported by four helicopters and a fighter jet, said provincial police chief Raed Shakir.
Officials close to the prime minister said the killing enraged al-Maliki, who has been locked in negotiations in recent months over a long-term security agreement with the United States. Al-Maliki demanded an explanation from the Americans, who promised an investigation into the incident, said the officials Sunday, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. Karbala Gov. Aqil al-Khuzaie said in a statement Saturday that the raid was a violation of an agreement signed with the U.S. last year that transferred Karbala to the control of Iraqi security forces.”http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080629/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
AND ONCE AGAIN, A LOVELY VIDEO OF THE KIND OF OPERATIONS WHICH END UP KILLING MALIKI’S RELATIVES
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.