Damian Lataan
Wednesday November 28, 2007

I’m not sure that I’ve read a more sickening document than the one that was released by the White House yesterday entitled ‘Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America’. Encapsulated in this document is the geo-political reality of what the Bush/Cheney administration and their neoconservative and Likudnik supporters had set out to achieve since the day George W. Bush became President of the US.

Far from ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people from the ‘yoke of tyranny’ for them to become a ‘free and democratic’ model to which all other Middle Eastern states could aspire, which was the propaganda and rhetoric used by the neoconservatives that convinced the Coalition of the Willing that Iraq was a ‘noble and righteous cause’, the declaration instead condemns Iraq to an endless occupation designed to enhance the power of the elite puppets of Iraq, and to ensure that Iraq’s resources remain firmly under American control and enriching American controlled oil companies. In short, the document is the instrument by which Iraq has effectively become a colony of the US.

There are several iniquitous points made in the document that betray the real intent of the administration but, in particular, point five of the second principle relating to ‘the economic sphere’ which says: “Facilitating and encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments, to contribute to the reconstruction and rebuilding of Iraq,” and point eight which says: “Supporting the Republic of Iraq to obtain positive and preferential trading conditions for Iraq within the global marketplace including accession to the World Trade Organization and most favored nation status with the United States,” says it all.

Iraq’s puppet leaders have signed over Iraq to the US.

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message

Is there something wrong with Americans making investments in Iraq and receiving returns?

Middle Eastern countries generally do not have the needed capital or expertise to drill for oil or run oil refineries. These processes generally are run by foreign contractors, such as US or British oil companies. These companies generally hire local employees to work at the plants, thus expanding the economy.

If these contracts didn't go to American companies, they would go to French or Russian companies, as indeed they have under Saddam.

This agreement simply means that Americans are allowed to, and indeed encouraged to, trade with Iraq. It also means that Iraqis are encouraged to trade with Americans.

This is a big deal since in the past, trade between Iraq and America was forbidden. Now it's encouraged.

Quite honestly, I'm puzzled by the attitude of the writer of this article. There's nothing wrong with these agreements. Someone will make money off the export of oil, and it had might as well be the US. The agreement encourages Iraq to support American companies, but does not require it. If they get a better deal from France, there's nothing in this agreement that prevents them from accepting it.

I did a web search for the actual document and read it in full. I'm sorry, I see nothing wrong with it at all. Here it is:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html

It's just a treaty to encourage the cooperation between two nations with common interests. Nothing more, and nothing less.

D

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message

Of course you see nothing wrong with it. It's hard to see anything with your head up your ass. Iraq doesn't exist anymore.

Don't tell me you expected the word to come from the official US document. Duh! If it works like a colony, if it quacks like a colony then it's a "US supported democracy".

If the globalists have their way, the native Iraqis will only be a small fraction of the population by 2020.

The few Iraqis left will be so conditioned, so brainwashed, by the US occupants they will have to succumb to their overlords or risk their lives.

Maybe a hundreds years from now they will their own casinos as a concession for being almost wiped out by the white settlers.

you are dealing with whites who believe in manifest destiny
i.e., a world conquered and populated by whites,
that's the true agenda of the one world government.

The first $4B of the Iraq war went to a company made up of former South African police and intelligence officers. The same guys that brought us apartheid! They were out of a job since that Nelson Mandala guy wasn't dead and did kick their behinds right out of a job! These were the guys that were supposed to "train" the "new" Iraqi army.

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message

Iraq's birth rate is 4.07 children per woman, while ours is 2.09. This means Iraq's population is increasing at a very rapid rate. Our population is stable at about 2.09 children per woman. (You need about that number to keep the population stable because some children die before adulthood).

It seems to me, then, that our nation could not possibly flood Iraq with people, particularly since I don't think most Americans consider Iraq to be a particularly interesting or appealing place to live and work. The idea of millions of us emigrating to Iraq to work in the oilfields seems, well, absurd on the face of it.

If you want to visit an oil-rich nation, try Dubai; it's going to be far friendlier to Westerners and Western ideas, period. Also, it's the clubbing and party capital of the Middle East. I could see many Americans going there, but not Iraq.

D

Note: You will be prompted to set up an account once done with your message