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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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/
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
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.
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. 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. 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
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 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?
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
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.
Foreign embassies to the USA tend to be located in Washington D.C.. That's where the Iraqi embassy has always been, in particular. 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.
