ANSWER Coalition responds to President Obama's speech on Iraq

[IndianaGreen]

ANSWER Coalition responds to President Obama's speech on Iraq

Today's announcement that renames the 50,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is nothing more than the rebranding of the illegal U.S. occupation of Iraq that began with the criminal invasion of the country by hundreds of thousands of U.S. forces on March 20, 2003. Let's remember, the goal of the Bush administration, too, was not to keep a certain number of U.S. troops in Iraq forever, but instead to exercise U.S. domination over the country and the region.

The Obama administration has maintained the principal military and civilian leaders from the Bush administration. The withdrawal of some combat brigades from Iraq is essentially a redeployment exercise so that tens of thousands more U.S. troops can be sent to Afghanistan.

Since Bush left office, and contrary to the deep desire of the masses of people who constituted the electoral base for President Obama’s November 2008 victory, the U.S. military machine has grown, not diminished. The U.S. military budget has actually increased, not decreased.

The ongoing occupation of Iraq, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the increasing threats against Iran, and the enduring U.S.-Israeli war directed against the Palestinian people are all clear indicators that U.S. foreign policy and its military strategy are premised on the pursuit and maintenance of Empire regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans occupy the White House.

When he delivered his major address in Cairo on June 4, 2009, President Obama described the war in Iraq as a "war of choice." That is simply popular vernacular for a war of aggression. The reality of his position, however, was revealed today when President Obama actually called George W. Bush to confer with him in advance of tonight's address on Iraq. Tonight, President Obama took the occasion to salute Bush as a "patriot" with "love of country and commitment to our security." George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other high officials in the Bush administration should be indicted and prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=9779&news_iv_ctrl=1621

[depakid]

1. Meh, what's one more Democratic constituency

[Ozymanithrax]

2. We have a status of forces agreement which makes U.S. presence in Iraq legal...

Since they start out with a lie, I just renamed them "Fox News" and quit reading.

[IndianaGreen]

3. The SOFA was signed with a government that the US put in place by force of arms

Our invasion of Iraq is on the same moral and legal plane as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Germany's invasion of Poland, Japan's invasion of China.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. It is a legal binding agreement between two governments recognized by the U.N

Which means our presence is not an occupation. Since Answer doesn't know that, or more likely, they just don't care enough to state the truth, they are no different than Fox News. Liars on the left are exactly the same as liars on the right. They have an agenda to spread around and if the truth is inconvenient they just ignore it.

[IndianaGreen]

5. The Iraqis certainly felt occupied by us. We are the ones that invaded them.

Fox News supports the war.

BTW, Iraq's PM Maliki lost the election to Alawi, but refuses to concede. That's some friend, a Shia puppet of Iran!

[Ozymanithrax]

6. Then Answer Coalition should be happy to know that they are the same as Fox.

I did not claim that Alawi was a friend. I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq. I think that Iraq has the right to determine what from of government they want and who they want to be friends with. The Status of Forces agreement is a legally binding document that defines our presence there through the end of 2011. We are no more occupying Iraq than we are occupying Germany under the terms of Law. So Answer is either ignorant or willfully fraudulent in their claims.

[IndianaGreen]

7. We installed a puppet regime in Iraq, and then we signed a SOFA with them

It is not legal and it does not make our occupation legitimate.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. That regime was accepted by the UN which made it a legal government.

A legal government signed a binding document, which means we are not defined by law or the UN or the Geneva Convention as an occupying force. Occupation under law actually means something, it isn't just a buzz word. Answer should be accurate in their comments. By choosing not to be accurate they join the likes of Beck and Fox News.

[IndianaGreen]

9. The UN also believed Colin Powell's bullshit yellow cake speech

The invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. I don't disagree with the fact that Iraq was a war of aggression.

I only point out that we are not an occupying power at this point in history.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Let's agree to disagree

meanwhile, I must say adieu, I have to go to work!

Good night, Ozymanithrax.

:-)

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Good night.

[smalll]

13. "illegal US occupation" "criminal invasion" "US domination" ---

"contrary to the deep desire of the masses"
"the US military machine"
"occupation"
"escalation"
"threats against Iran"
"the enduring US-Israeli war directed against the Palestinian people"
"pursuit and maintenance of Empire"
"war of choice/war of agression"
"war crimes and crimes against humanity."


Sorry, but unlike those who use such overwrought and tendentious language, I can tell the difference between this:



and this: