Cheney on Unannounced Visit to Iraq

"BAGHDAD — Vice President Dick Cheney
made an unannounced trip Monday to Baghdad, where he plans to push
Iraqi political leaders toward opening the country’s vast oil fields to
international companies, a senior Bush administration official said."

 

"

“Exploiting and controlling the Iraqi oil fields have been part of
the American scheme for more than four years,” said Hassan al-Rubaie, a
member of parliament and senior member of Mr. Sadr’s political
alliance. “Our presence in the parliament and among the Iraqi people
will work with other national forces to stop this scheme.”

Administration
officials have characterized their efforts on behalf of international
oil companies as leveling the playing field to make sure there is a
free and competitive market.

On board Mr. Cheney’s aircraft, the
senior administration official said the vice president would thank
Iraqi leaders “for the hard work they’ve done” and he would urge them
to proceed with “the rest of the hard work necessary to consolidate
Iraq’s democracy.” The official said that “several landmark pieces of
legislation” have passed since the vice president was last here, in May."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/world/middleeast/18iraq.html?_r=1&ref=...

 

No votes yet

and field operations of his Haliburton company.

Bomb kills 32 in Iraqi city of Karbala

"Elsewhere in the capital, Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John McBush vowed in meetings with Iraq's prime minister that the U.S. would maintain a long-term military presence in Iraq"

This message brought to you by "The Republican Occupation in Iraq"

Interesting, in 2003;
"WASHINGTON - The US military does not plan on having a long-term presence in Iraq, and the end of Saddam Hussein's government should mean fewer US troops in the region, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday."
"Rumsfeld was responding to an article in The New York Times on Sunday, quoting unnamed administration officials as saying that the United States was planning a permanent military presence in Iraq, a notion he described as ''enormously unhelpful.''
''Any impression that is left, which that article left, that the United States plans some sort of permanent presence in that country, I think, is a signal to the people of that country that's inaccurate and unfortunate, because we don't plan to function as an occupier, '' Rumsfeld said. To emphasize his point, he added, ''You can substitute `long-term' for `permanent' and my answer's the same.'' "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030422-troops01.htm

Can you all honestly hold the government to something said in 2003? Let's just be realistic, whether you agree with the occupation or not (I won't even say what I think on that subject at this point, for sake of argument): in military operations, the situation changes from day to day and certainly between 2003 and now. The phrase "does not plan on having..." means that, in the state that Iraq was in at that time, there were no plans for a long-term occupation.

Why would you slam the military for not being able to stick to a plan based on a completely different situation...?

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

Who is slamming the military?
The military was led, at the time, by people who some disjointed view of the situation.
Long term military bases were said to not be a happenstance by the administration members. No bases and then, wa-la, bases.
But we are not occupiers, we are part of a coalition to see Iraq through to democracy, but, yet nation building was also not part of the administration plans either.
But here we are.
I can hold leaders accountable for not being forth right, honest and competent.

Crusader has a point and I don't think he accused anyone of slamming the military.

Many in Iraq know that the situation is always changing and the only way to save lives is to adapt and change as well.

Currently the biggest reason the US has control of bases still is the presence of air superiority. When we dismantled the Iraqi military their air force went with it. Without any air power an Iranian invasion would probably be as successful as our ground invasion. Until Iraq has a fully functioning air force we will still need to control many bases. But the Iraqi's are slowly building up their air power. I know that a year ago they finally had a class graduate from flight school. The progress has been slow however and that's the disappointment.

MikeyA

MikeyA

Which leads to, what if, the leadership in Iraq decides to make an arms deal with Russia or China, let us say for the airplanes and parts, all the while the U.S. military is helping to rebuild the Air Force.

 

And then, let us suppose, the Iraqi's are able to rebuild what we took apart and pull themselves up, will we see a closure of U.S. bases?

 

History, tends to show that we will not close the bases, but maintain a precense there.

"History, tends to show that we will not close the bases, but maintain a precense there."

With the exception of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba there is NOT ONE permanent US base that does not operate without the consent of the host nation.

Guantanamo was created under such an agreement but the agreement states it can only be altered or terminated when it's agreed upon by both governments. Obviously the two cannot agree so Guantanamo has operated under the same structure it always has.

MikeyA

MikeyA

I am at the point where I no longer believe anything that comes from this administration.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.