Troops from Iraq going home to US!

Nobody

Suspended Indefinitely
Registered Senior Member
Monday, October 24, 2011
Local
Monday, October 24, 2011

CNMI hails Obama's decision to bring home troops from Iraq

By Haidee V. Eugenio
Reporter

President Barack Obama's announcement on Saturday in Washington, D.C. that virtually all U.S. troops will come home from Iraq by the end of the year is welcome news to many in the CNMI, which has lost 14 sons and daughters in military service since the war against terror started in 2003.

“After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over,” Obama said in his weekly address.

Obama said as the U.S. removes the last of its troops from Iraq, it is also beginning to bring troops home from Afghanistan.

Janine Camacho, 24, wishes that her husband, Army Sgt. Billy Joe Camacho, comes home for Christmas.

Sgt. Camacho was deployed to Iraq two years ago, and is currently stationed in Afghanistan for one year starting in April this year.

“I want him to come home because it's dangerous out there, but I know he has to do what he has to do. Everyone wants their loved ones home but they have a mission to do,” Mrs. Camacho told Saipan Tribune yesterday. They got married in 2007.

Mrs. Camacho said the CNMI welcomes home the troops, and hopes that people will continue to pray for the safety of those who will still be in Afghanistan and other areas outside the U.S.

The war in Iraq claimed the lives of more than 4,400 American lives, and has cost the U.S. Department of Defense nearly $757 billion for military operations over the past decade.

Delegate Gregorio Kilili Sablan (Ind-MP) said the president's decision will put an end to an enormous drain on the nation's financial resources.

“We can no longer afford to spend so much overseas, when our needs here at home are so great,” Sablan said in a statement in the wake of Obama's address.

Sablan said “those of us with loved ones, family members, and friends still in Iraq are glad and grateful that the President has made the decision that all our troops will be home for the holidays.”

“The Northern Mariana Islands lost 14 of our sons and daughters in military service, since the Iraq War began in 2003. We will always mourn their loss and honor their service. Now, we can be grateful that no more of our brave soldiers will be at risk in Iraq, even as we continue to pray for those who remain at war in Afghanistan,” he said.

Ruth Coleman, former executive officer of the CNMI Veterans Affairs Office, said yesterday that Obama's announcement is “good news” for the CNMI, and that the sacrifices made by troops from the CNMI and their families have been “worth it.”

“Our troops did not die in vain. Men and women who served and are serving sacrificed so much so that there will be peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. We honor all their sacrifices,” Coleman said.

Press secretary Angel Demapan said yesterday that the Fitial administration is “very much grateful that the President has made this decision.”

“This will certainly be a wonderful gift to families in the coming holiday season. Already, our country has expended an enormous amount of money overseas, but even greater than the value of cash, we have lost too many of our beloved sons and daughters. Right here at home, we have already laid to rest 14 of our own heroes,” Demapan said.

He said although the administration can draw a sense of reprieve from this latest announcement, it joins many other families whose loved ones are serving in Afghanistan and other places as they, too, await the day that they will hear a similar decision to draw down troops from there.

“To the families of our soldiers, every single day, we are honored and humbled by the sacrifice that our service members make in the name of our freedom and our country. Because of their valor and determination to preserve liberty and justice, each of us is able to sleep each night and wake up the next day with freedom on our side. As your loved ones currently in Iraq begin the process of winding down and completing their operation, we shall continue to pray that they be kept out of harm's way and that they return home to their families safely,” he said.

House floor leader George Camacho (Ind-Saipan), for his part, said he wishes the troops a safe and speedy return home.

“And we are forever grateful for the work they do,” he added.

Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo, in a statement, said “President Obama fulfilled a promise to America that he would responsibly end the war in Iraq.

“As we look forward to the return of our troops from Iraq, we must ensure that they have health care and support services in the coming years,” she said.

Bordallo said she will continue to work with the Obama administration and her colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee “to ensure that our brave men and women return home to communities that will be able to support them with jobs and the health care services they deserve.”

“I am grateful for the efforts of our men and women in uniform who helped bring down a tyrant and gave the people of Iraq a chance for freedom and democracy,” she added.

Obama's announcement also came after talks that might have allowed a continued major military presence broke down amid disputes about whether U.S. troops would be immune to prosecution by Iraqi authorities, CNN reported.

“The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their head held high, proud of their success and knowing that the American people stand united in support for our troops,” Obama said.

His decision also comes in the wake of the death of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya.

Obama said last year, he announced the end of combat mission in Iraq. He said the U.S. has already removed more than 100,000 troops,and Iraqi forces have taken full responsibility for the security of their own country.

He said when he took office, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“By the end of this year, that number will be cut in half, and an increasing number of our troops will continue to come home,” he added.
 
"Already, our country has expended an enormous amount of money overseas"

Yeah, in other words the US is irreversibly bankrupt, thats why they are being pulled out :)

Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that the money wasted on the Iraq war could have been used to fix America’s Social Security problem for half a century.

The true cost of war

The World will now be centered on the EU, the suckers in the US have impoverished there Sheeple nation.
 
As long as Iraq keeps selling oil in USD - corporate America keeps on winning. Really, at the end of the day, that's it. You could think of it as indirect colonization. Stealing the spoils without actually stealing them.
 
Its not what they tell you that is important, its what they don't tell you


Exclusive: U.S. Blocks Oversight of Its Mercenary Army in Iraq

By January 2012, the State Department will do something it’s never done before: command a mercenary army the size of a heavy combat brigade. That’s the plan to provide security for its diplomats in Iraq once the U.S. military withdraws. And no one outside State knows anything more, as the department has gone to war with its independent government watchdog to keep its plan a secret.

Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), is essentially in the dark about one of the most complex and dangerous endeavors the State Department has ever undertaken, one with huge implications for the future of the United States in Iraq. “Our audit of the program is making no progress,” Bowen tells Danger Room.

For months, Bowen’s team has tried to get basic information out of the State Department about how it will command its assembled army of about 5,500 private security contractors. How many State contracting officials will oversee how many hired guns? What are the rules of engagement for the guards? What’s the system for reporting a security danger, and for directing the guards’ response?

And for months, the State Department’s management chief, former Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, has given Bowen a clear response: That’s not your jurisdiction. You just deal with reconstruction, not security. Never mind that Bowen has audited over $1.2 billion worth of security contracts over seven years.

“Apparently, Ambassador Kennedy doesn’t want us doing the oversight that we believe is necessary and properly within our jurisdiction,” Bowen says. “That hard truth is holding up work on important programs and contracts at a critical moment in the Iraq transition.”

This isn’t an idle concern or a typical bureaucratic tussle. The State Department has hired private security for its diplomats in war zones for the better part of a decade. Poor control of them caused one of the biggest debacles of the Iraq war: the September 2007 shooting incident in Nisour Square, where Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians. Now roughly double those guards from the forces on duty now, and you’ll understand the scope of what State is planning once the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq at the end of this year.


“They have no experience running a private army,” says Ramzy Mardini, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War who just returned from a weeks-long trip to Iraq. “I don’t think the State Department even has a good sense of what it’s taking on. The U.S. military is concerned about it as well.”

So far, the Department has awarded three security contracts for Iraq worth nearly $2.9 billion over five years. Bowen can’t even say for sure how much the department actually intends to spend on mercs in total. State won’t let it see those totals.

About as much information as the department has disclosed about its incipient private army comes from a little-noticed Senate hearing in February. There, the top U.S. military and civilian officials in Iraq said that they’d station the hired guard force at Basra, Irbil, Mosul and Kirkuk, with the majority — over 3,000 — protecting the mega-embassy in Baghdad. They’ll ferry diplomats around in armored convoys and a State-run helicopter fleet, the first in the department’s history.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/07/iraq-merc-army/
 
S.A.M.

So far, the Department has awarded three security contracts for Iraq worth nearly $2.9 billion over five years. Bowen can’t even say for sure how much the department actually intends to spend on mercs in total. State won’t let it see those totals.

So if the US military isn't going to be given immunity by the Iraq government and that is one reason they are leaving then what will happen with the mercenaries legal position if something happens with them? Seems that this idea of having American mercenaries staying there will become a very big problem if they get involved with more killings or other underhanded deeds. :shrug:
 
Why is the USA in Iraq? The only answer is oil. There's just nothing else of value there. The USA will do whatever it thinks it can so as to see that Iraqi oil is sold in USD. If that means keeping 5500 mercs there, then so be it. If it means putting puppet after puppet in charge, then so be it. Until the USA squeezes as much out of that country as it can, it isn't going anywhere in a hurry. Not really anyway.

You did see the thread on Americans who could barely pick a few tomatoes before collapsing in total and utterly complete exhaustion. We're talking 3 hours tops. We need that sweet Iraqi oil, how else are we going to pay for all the stuff? You know, the stuff. The stuff from China, from Mexico, wherever. We need all that stuff. So, mercs it'll be.
 
Total BS
Oil is sold in the international market so it doesn't matter WHO Iraq sells oil to.

As to where we actually get our oil:

YTD in Thousand Barrels per day

US own production ~5,800

Imports

CANADA 2,121
SAUDI ARABIA 1,155
MEXICO 1,110
VENEZUELA 925
NIGERIA 864

So for just the top 5 importers plus our own production, that's 10,075 thousand barrels per day.

YTD from Iraq is 458 thousand

Or 4 %

So no, that is NOT why we are in Iraq.

But good try.

Arthur


http://205.254.135.24/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
 
Total BS
Oil is sold in the international market so it doesn't matter WHO Iraq sells oil to.

As to where we actually get our oil:

YTD in Thousand Barrels per day

US own production ~5,800

Imports

CANADA 2,121
SAUDI ARABIA 1,155
MEXICO 1,110
VENEZUELA 925
NIGERIA 864

So for just the top 5 importers plus our own production, that's 10,075 thousand barrels per day.

YTD from Iraq is 458 thousand

Or 4 %

So no, that is NOT why we are in Iraq.

But good try.

Arthur


http://205.254.135.24/pub/oil_gas/p...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html
I'm not disagreeing WHO it is sold too. I said what matters is what it's denominated IN. Namely USD.

We print USD. This means they sell their oil, we get to print more USD.


Is there a fault in that logic?
:shrug:


Let me see here, Iraq potentially has the world's largest proven oil reserves, with more than 350 billion barrels (at least according to them) and the entire world's economy is utterly dependent on oil, but, the USA invaded Iraq and this had NOTHING to do with their oil reserves? Then you quote their bpb following a decade of sanctions and another decade of war? Come on, that's such a thinly veiled disingenuous comparison as to make me wonder why on earth you'd post it?

Why did we invade Iraq? Was it ALL just to appease the MIC? If so, that's even more of a worry.
 
Last edited:
I'm not disagreeing WHO it is sold too. I said what matters is what it's denominated IN. Namely USD.

We print USD. This means they sell their oil, we get to print more USD.


Is there a fault in that logic?
:shrug:

Yes, there is no logic at all in that statement.
The denomination it is sold in doesn't have any effect on our money supply.

Even if you thought so, the amount of oil bought and sold each day is relatively steady, so there would STILL be no impact on money supply, it's not like after buying the oil in USD the dollars are burnt. Indeed they just move from one electronic ledger to another ledger in a big bank somewhere.

Let me see here, Iraq potentially has the world's largest proven oil reserves, with more than 350 billion barrels (at least according to them) and the entire world's economy is utterly dependent on oil, but, the USA invaded Iraq and this had NOTHING to do with their oil reserves?

Well of course it does have something to do with their oil reserves.
It gave the thug running the country enough money to do pretty much what he wanted, including supporting international terrorism and starting a few regional wars that ended in lots of people being killed.

What it wasn't about was stealing Iraqi oil.

Then you quote their bpb following a decade of sanctions and another decade of war? Come on, that's such a thinly veiled disingenuous comparison as to make me wonder why on earth you'd post it?

To show how much Iraqi oil is in the scheme of things.
You seem to think it is a big deal (and reserves mean nothing to the price of oil, it's all about volume/ease of production, location and quality)
If we had wanted to maximize Iraqi oil production (thus lowering our cost of oil) our strategy would have been quite a bit different.

As to current production it would be higher but oil pipelines and oil wells are fairly easy targets and Al Qaeda wants to keep the amount of oil Iraq produces down as oil revenue improves the life of the Iraqis and that is clearly counter to their overall goals.

Arthur
 
Oh noes, we are guarding our diplomats... the horror...

Yeah, a 700 million dollar horror

After much delay the United States opened its new $700 million embassy in Iraq on Monday, inaugurating the largest — and most expensive — embassy ever built.

The 104-acre compound, bigger than the Vatican and about the size of 80 football fields, boasts 21 buildings, a commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire station, power and water treatment plants, as well as telecommunications and wastewater treatment facilities.

The compound is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the size of the National Mall in Washington.

It has space for 1,000 employees with six apartment blocks and is 10 times larger than any other U.S. embassy.

In a ceremony Monday attended by U.S. and Iraqi officials, the U.S. Ambassador Ryan Cocker ushered in a "new era" for both Iraq and for the Iraqi-U.S. relationship, although critics have said that the embassy's fortress-like design and immense size show a fundamental disconnect between the U.S. and conditions on the ground in Iraq.

“The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country,” the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in 2006.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,476464,00.html#ixzz1bogVwf1u

Who is paying for this?



The US embassy – the largest and most expensive in the world – is in a green zone of its own in Baghdad, supplied by armed convoys and generating its own water and electricity, and treating its own sewage. At 104 acres, the embassy is almost the same size as Vatican City. It is here that the US is transforming its military-led approach into one of muscular diplomacy.

State department figures show that some 17,000 personnel will be under the jurisdiction of the US ambassador. In addition, there are also consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each. Crucially, all these US staff, including military and security contractors, will have diplomatic immunity. Essentially, the Obama administration is reaping the political capital of withdrawing US troops while hedging the impact of the withdrawal with an increase in private security contractors working for a diplomatic mission unlike any other on the planet.

This "surge" of contractors has even raised the possibility of controversial firm Blackwater, now known as Xe, returning to the country. The firm was responsible for the deaths of 17 Iraqis in 2007 in the infamous Nisour Square massacre, yet president and chief executive Ted Wright told the Wall Street Journal recently that he would like to do business in Iraq again.

In 2008, much was made in of the fact that as part of the Status of Forces Agreement (Sofa) between the US and Iraq, contractors would lose their immunity. However, as a congressional research report noted: "The term defined in the agreement, 'US contractors and their employees', only applies to contractors that are operating under a contract/subcontract with or for the United States forces. Therefore, US contractors operating in Iraq under contract to other US departments/agencies are not subject to the terms of the Sofa."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/25/us-departure-iraq-illusion
 
We did. So what?

I'd like to see an 80 football field Iraqi embassy in NY being seen as not a big deal. The whole Iraq war was of course to make sure that the USD is kept slightly above toilet paper status which was threatened by Saddam moving over to the euro as oil currency. So its not diplomats who are being protected in this 104 acre embassy, its the lifestyles of the rich and famous. This is also why, in between their revolution, Libyan "rebels" [previously known as al Qaeda in Mesopotamia] were establishing a central bank so that Libyan money supply was no longer internally controlled, keeping Libya both debt free and self sufficient, both things in a country which threaten US economy

Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.

When the smoke eventually clears from all the cruise missiles and cluster bombs, you will see the Allied reformers move in to reform Libya’s monetary system, pumping it full of worthless dollars, priming it for a series of chaotic inflationary cycles.

thus introducing both Iraq and Libya to the wonderful world of World Bank and IMF policies as has already been done elsewhere in Africa by the Americans. We've seen the vast improvement in African states blessed by the global banking cartel system. So whats the improvement in Iraq after 10 years of American occupation? And how has the 100 acre embassy contributed to it?
 
So whats the improvement in Iraq after 10 years of American occupation? And how has the 100 acre embassy contributed to it?

The embassy was built with plenty of local materials and labor and buys supplies from the locals, so clearly it would be an economic advantage to have it in the country.

As to the country itself:

GDP in 2002 was 20.5 Billion, per Capita of $802
GCP in 2011 is 108 Billion, per Capita of $3,300.

Imports were 24 Billion in 05, 78 Billion in 11
Exports were 22 Billion in 05, 59 Billion in 11
 
But if oil is traded in euros and the euro loses value, then oil will become cheaper for the US.

Nah, they adjust the price of oil to compensate for large fluctuations in value.
The currency used doesn't have much to do with it.
 
I'd like to see an 80 football field Iraqi embassy in NY being seen as not a big deal.

Foreign embassies to the USA tend to be located in Washington D.C.. That's where the Iraqi embassy has always been, in particular.

So whats the improvement in Iraq after 10 years of American occupation? And how has the 100 acre embassy contributed to it?

2003+10 = 2013. You seem to be thinking of some other country.

Data on reconstruction progress is publicly available. You can look at it, if you care.

Meanwhile, we've just seen that the government of Iraq is sufficiently sovereign to demand the removal of all US troops and get it. So I'm unclear one who you think you're speaking for when you rail against an embassy that said government appears to be okay with.
 
Back
Top