Wasted US dead, wasted Iraqi dead, but don't forget about these

[boutons_]

US Accused of Ignoring Crisis for 4.5 Million Displaced Iraqis

By Hannah Allam
McClatchy Newspapers Tuesday 13 November 2007

Cairo, Egypt - The U.S. government is "unforgivably slow" in resettling Iraqi refugees and has failed to coordinate with its Arab allies to address the suffering of an estimated 4.5 million displaced Iraqis, according to a report released Tuesday by a leading Washington-based refugee advocacy group.

Nearly five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has made little effort to speed up relief for a population that's growing more vulnerable by the day, Refugees International concluded after its most recent trip to Iraqi refugee communities in the Middle East. The group's advocates said the White House appeared oblivious to the magnitude of the war's humanitarian disaster.

"The first reason for this is the lack of political will," said Kristele Younes, a co-author of the Refugees International report. "Until very recently, the Bush administration never even acknowledged the humanitarian crisis because they were concerned that it would be interpreted as acknowledging failure in Iraq. And President Bush still has yet to acknowledge that there are now almost 5 million Iraqis who've had to leave their homes."

The report is critical of the United States' inability to make good on its resettlement promises. Despite talk of allowing 7,000 Iraqi refugees into the U.S. this year, only 1,608 had been admitted by the end of September and another 450 entered in October.

By comparison, the U.S. government has resettled nearly three times that many Iranians this year - 5,481 - even though refugees from Iran share the same stories of religious and political persecution as their Iraqi neighbors, Younes said. Arguments that Iraqi refugees could pose a security risk also would apply to Iranians, she added. All refugees admitted to the United States for resettlement undergo security screenings.


...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21470.html

================


Katrina proved dubya and his FEMA doen't know fuck how to manage natural disaster.

Iraq proves dubya doesn't know or give a fuck about duyba-made diasters.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya

Yoni: "Iraq is a success and the best prosecuted US war ever.'

[George Gervin's Afro]

Come on Bouton's these are obviously liberals who want govt handouts. they did not prepare themselves to be liberated by bush and company so they should suffer the consequences of not being conservatives..

[Nbadan]

Will the U.S. ever leave Iraq? Official policy promises an eventual departure, while warning of the dire consequences of a "premature" withdrawal. But while Washington equivocates, facts on the ground tell another story. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, and author Chalmers Johnson, are discovering that military bases in Iraq are being consolidated from over a hundred to a handful of "megabases" with lavish amenities. Much of what is taking place is obscured by denials and quibbles over the definition of "permanent." The Bases Are Loaded covers a wide range of topics. Gary Hart, James Goldsborough, Nadia Keilani, Raed Jarrar, Bruce Finley Kam Zarrabi and Mark Rudd all add their observations about the extent and purpose of the bases in Iraq.

The Bases Are Loaded (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GQHeo-CMQyc)

[boutons_]

The 5 US mega bases, including the AF base to be the biggest, best, state-of-the-art of all US AF bases, clearly indicate to the Iraqis and the world the dubya and dickhead intend to occupy Iraq for decades, another plank in thier hidden agenda, totally concealed at invasion time.

Dubya already compared his occupation and oppression of Iraq to US occupation in Korea.

Recent posts of mine showed articles where the Iraqi parliament is against the UN renewing the mandate of the US occupiers. Will dubya ignore the democratically, purple-fingered elected Iraqi parliament? Of course he will. He sitll hasn't got his venal hands on the Iraqi oil, although his buddy cut an illegal oil deal directly with the Kurds.

[Yonivore]

Will the U.S. ever leave Iraq? Official policy promises an eventual departure, while warning of the dire consequences of a "premature" withdrawal. But while Washington equivocates, facts on the ground tell another story. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, and author Chalmers Johnson, are discovering that military bases in Iraq are being consolidated from over a hundred to a handful of "megabases" with lavish amenities. Much of what is taking place is obscured by denials and quibbles over the definition of "permanent." The Bases Are Loaded covers a wide range of topics. Gary Hart, James Goldsborough, Nadia Keilani, Raed Jarrar, Bruce Finley Kam Zarrabi and Mark Rudd all add their observations about the extent and purpose of the bases in Iraq.
I think we'll leave Iraq as an offensive force and establish military bases in an allied country, along the lines of what we did after WWII.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think we'll leave Iraq as an offensive force and establish military bases in an allied country, along the lines of what we did after WWII.


So considering we have been told by our govt that we will not be in that region long term that was a lie?

[Yonivore]

So considering we have been told by our govt that we will not be in that region long term that was a lie?
Quote please.

I've never had the impression we wouldn't have a presence in the region long term. We have bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Does your lie scenario contemplate we'll close those bases and leave the region? Why would Iraq be any different than our other allies?

In fact, I'd rather have a base in a Democratic Iraq than a Imperial Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.

I know, it takes complex reasoning to be able discern we, as a country, are able to enter into agreements whereby we can locate bases in allied countries. I'm betting whatever quote you're able to come up with will, in context, apply to our presence as an offensive fighting force. But, I'll wait and see.

[Nbadan]

Well obviously if they don't say it, it must not be true...

:rolleyes

[boutons_]

"a base in a Democratic Iraq"

... as long as the US ignores the democratic will of Iraqis, just as dubya ignores the democratic will of Americans.

[Yonivore]

Well obviously if they don't say it, it must not be true...

:rolleyes
Well, Dan, the real quandry is that I already have an understanding that we will have a continued presence in the middle east; whether it's in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, we will be there. And, nothing this administration has said has disabused me of that notion.

Dipshit said the administration lied. I was just wanting the quote because, call me skeptical, he's not been very accurate with his "quoting" the administration before.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, Dan, the real quandry is that I already have an understanding that we will have a continued presence in the middle east; whether it's in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, we will be there. And, nothing this administration has said has disabused me of that notion.

Dipshit said the administration lied. I was just wanting the quote because, call me skeptical, he's not been very accurate with his "quoting" the administration before.



here's one:


At an April 2003 press conference, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said any suggestion that the US is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is "inaccurate and unfortunate."

[Yonivore]

here's one:
Maybe we weren't planning that in 2003. You do know he's no longer with the administration, right?

How 'bout a link to the quote so I can see the context in which the statement was made?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Maybe we weren't planning that in 2003. You do know he's no longer with the administration, right?

How 'bout a link to the quote so I can see the context in which the statement was made?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm



Rumsfeld said "I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting. ... The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence, to my knowledge. Why do I say it's low? Well, we've got all kinds of options and opportunities in that part of the world to locate forces, it's not like we need a new place. We have plenty of friends and plenty of ability to work with them and have locations for things that help to contribute to stability in the region. ... Rumsfeld: I think there is a down side. I think any impression that is left, which that article left, that the United States plans some sort of a 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, we don't plan to prescribe to any new government how we ought to be arranged in their country."

[Yonivore]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm
Again, that was 2003 and, also, what do I know? We still may not be planning permanent bases in Iraq.

I just thought it made sense.

I guess we won't know until the fighting is over and the U.S. starts regular deployments to military bases in Iraq, will we?

But, wouldn't that necessarily involve the next administration?

Anyway, after four years, the thinking could have changed. I think Iraq would be an excellent place to have our bases. And, then, I'd close them in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Bottom line, it's not a lie yet. And, frankly, that he had no knowlege of plans, in 2003, could never become a lie unless you find documents that show we were planning permanent bases in Iraq prior to the statement.

[boutons_]

'We still may not be planning permanent bases in Iraq."

can you google?

dubya's US bases in Iraq aren't being planned, THEY HAVE BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION for a couple years now. dubya's occupation is to be effectively permanent, costing the US taxpayers at least 10s of $Bs per year, for decades.