Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: La colonia Irak

The Indipendent
Una vera annessione dell'Irak, con presenza militare permanente,
extraterritorialita' per tutti gli americani, rinuncia dell'Irak al
controllo dello spazio aereo, liberta' di arrestare perseguire e combattere
chiunque, questo fuori dalla giurisdizione Irakena.
Praticamente dominazione militare e politica.
Bisogna risalire al 1800 per trovare clausole simili.
Penso che Roosvelt si stia rivoltando nella tomba.
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.
But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US.
President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can
declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated.
But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would
undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to
withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.
The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John
McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq
– a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military
withdrawal.
America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected
withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10
000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. 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.
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now.
The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a
terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that
if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in
Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi
source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." 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.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called
"strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it
is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing
American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the
powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a
deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this
agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed
to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay
in power without US backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and
the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
Although Iraqi ministers have said they will reject any agreement limiting
Iraqi sovereignty, political observers in Baghdad suspect they will sign in
the end and simply want to establish their credentials as defenders of Iraqi
independence by a show of defiance now. The one Iraqi with the authority to
stop deal is the majority Shia spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani. In 2003, he forced the US to agree to a referendum on the new
Iraqi constitution and the election of a parliament. But he is said to
believe that loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shia, who
won a majority in parliament in elections in 2005.
The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a
referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential
Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every
Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises
Iraqi independence.
The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but
the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it
through. The US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, has spent weeks trying
to secure the accord.
The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal
basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most
Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably
favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders
who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab
community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US
occupation, is likely to be split.
Saluti
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 Penso che Roosvelt si stia rivoltando nella tomba
quale? L'inventore del big stick che ha installato dittatori in mezza
America o suo nipote che ha voluto la bomba atomica?


Ovviamente il secondo che fa Roosevelt e centra poco col primo.
Non era un britt e quindi non barava al gioco.
Lo ammiro per la carta Atlantica. L'unico presidente che ha ricevuto quattro
mandati.
Amal dovresti ringraziarlo, assieme a Stalin.
Se non c'erano loro adesso parlavi tedesco e saresti qua a scassare la
minchia esaltando le virtu' delle waffen SS


 truppe americane innanzi tempo.
dalla Polonia? quali truppe?

 Potsdam.
e neanche l'occidente agli americani, ma se lo sono preso lo
stesso...com'è che su quello non dici niente e hai solo da ridire su
quello che si è preso Stalin?


Che Stalin fosse un figlio di puttana non ci piove.
Ma senza baffone e gli yankee a quest'ora i britt ballavano solo valzer,
anche su questo non ci piove.
La Polonia ChiesaCollina se la poteva sognare fin dal 1944, idem come sopra.
Del resto la revisione dei confini che ha portato la Polonia a ovest in
Germania e la Russia a ovest in Polonia se la sono regolata a Potsdam.
I Russi si sono ritirati da Vienna, non gli USA da Varsavia.
A mio parere Roosevelt aveva visioni politiche vaste, Churchill meno, andava
bene come leader da tempo di guerra, come e' stato, i due in coppia facevano
un bel team.


 italiani evidentemente non ne sanno niente.
Mi pareva di ricordare che alla conferenza di Potsdam Roosevelt fosse
già morto.


beh, ma quelli di Artè hanno  una memoria storica peculiare...


Gia' alle volte ridicola, mai comunque come i documentari del National
Geografic. pura merda.
Consiglio vivamente Fog of War di Mc Namara, a confronto un capolavoro.
