|
Bethnai -> RE: Bush to lift North Korean sactions?!?!! (6/29/2008 6:29:10 AM)
|
The Kucinich Impeachment Articles , start on page 23 with Article XI-XIII , scroll down to Article XV and Article XVI are important. Of particular interest is Article XXI 38-41 that deal with Iran.
Here are the maps and charts he refers to, dated March 2001. You might remember BearingPoint, the firm that drafted the Iraq Oil Law from their recent score of 12.3M in a defense contract for the Navy.
Here is the draft of the Iraq Oil Law that Bearingpoint helped write.
This is a nifty article:
Iraqi politicians have been locked in a bitter dispute over how much control the federal government in Baghdad should have over regional oil operations, and how revenues would be shared among different communities. The technical agreements with the four Western companies would bypass the stalled law, offering oil companies payment for their services rather than a share of the oil. Such production agreements also circumvent the resistance among many Iraqi politicians to selling the rights to Iraqi oil directly to foreign companies, while making use of their technical skills.
Guess who didn't get invited to the party?
The four companies were picked from among more than 40 firms, including several from Russia, China and India, which were denied any contracts despite having signed memoranda of understanding with the Iraqi oil ministry, Gulf Today said.
“No-bid contracts are unusual for the oil industry and the deals being worked out are designed to let the four companies gain a firm foothold in Iraq,” it commented.
Russia had fair warning in 2003.
Another point that needs to be brought up because it is hand and hand is the SOFA.
US wants
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.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.
Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
We may not be able to get out of it:
The target date for concluding the agreement is July, says Gen. Doug Lute, Bush's Iraq coordinator in the White House—in other words, just in time for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.
Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president. It will become just another piece of the complex global security framework involving a hundred or so countries with which Washington now has bilateral defense or security cooperation agreements. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged Bush not to commit to any such agreement without congressional approval. The president said nothing about that on Saturday, but Lute said last fall that the Iraqi agreement would not likely rise to the level of a formal treaty requiring Senate ratification. Even so, it would be difficult if not impossible for future presidents to unilaterally breach such a pact.
Read 'em and weap.
|
|
|
|
