US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News :: Human Rights
Iraqi lawmakers say U.S. demanding 58 military bases
06 Jul 2008
israeli apartheid gorws at American expense...
Iraqi lawmakers say U.S. demanding 58 military bases

By Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers Mon Jun 9, 7:13 PM ET

BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq . Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran .

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir , a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq . "We were occupied by order of the Security Council ," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation upon two years of notice from either side, lawmakers said.

"It would impair Iraqi sovereignty," said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's Dawa party of the proposed accord. "The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq ... if we come under aggression we should define it and we ask for help."



Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.
'US Fears Israel Preparing Iran Strike'

Oppose US/Israeli Neo-Fascism | 05.07.2008 02:04 | Anti-militarism | World
Since the US has signed 'defence' agreements saying they will side with Israel even if Israel fires the first shot, this should read "US fears Israel will start a war it will have to fight".

'US fears Israel preparing Iran strike'
Jul. 3, 2008
Herb Keinon, staff and AP , THE JERUSALEM POST

This week's warnings from US President George W. Bush and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of America's Joint Chiefs of Staff, against an IDF strike on Iran are a sign that Washington is concerned that Jerusalem may indeed attack the Islamic Republic, Israeli government officials said Thursday.

(Or is perhaps a way for these War Criminals to publicly create the false impression that they are not interested in this war, which it appears Israel will start for them this time around.)

Also on Thursday, Channel 2 analyst Ehud Ya'ari reported that Iran had expressed readiness to freeze its uranium enrichment program in return for the lifting of the international sanctions imposed on it.

(Despite the fact that Iran has done absolutely nothing wrong ...)

Citing unnamed Western officials, he said the Iranians had conveyed messages indicating they could accept the latest incentive package offered by the West in return for halting its enrichment program.

Meanwhile, a State Department spokesman said the US was sticking to its demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment as a precondition for US participation in negotiations with the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.

(Like Israel, they make the object of 'negotiations' a precondition to negotiations, in order to scuttle a diplomatic process they are not interested in pursuing, but must appear to support, in order to hide their identity as the beliigerent aggressors.)

He added, however, that the US would not rule out early consultations with Iran before official talks begin on resolving its standoff with the West.

(This isn't a stand-off with 'the West'. Israel and the US have created the illusion of a crisis, in the hopes they can manipulate the illusion into a war, and fool the world into not viewing them as the aggressors.)

The spokesman went on to say that Washington would not dismiss the option of Iran stopping enrichment for a limited time in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, he stressed that Teheran must first give a detailed response to the EU incentive package, Israel Radio reported.

The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report.

(Note that much of this speculative nonsense is unsourced, and the J. Post and its Zionist owners are well-known for their willingness to distort the truth in order to further their ideological goals.)

Mullen said late Wednesday that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be a high-risk move that could destabilize the Middle East. At a Defense Department news conference, he refused to say what Israeli leaders had told him during meetings last week about any intentions to strike Iran.

(Which further reinforces the fear that Israel is readying this illegal Act of Aggression.)

Asked whether he was concerned Israel would strike before the end of the year, Mullen said: "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable."

Israeli officials said the fact that Mullen gave a press conference on the matter indicated he was not reassured by what he heard on his visit to Israel.

One of the purposes of his visit was to see whether recent comments made here, such as those made by Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, who said Israel might have no choice but to act against the Islamic Republic, were "just words" or indicated real intent.

Israel's large air force exercise over the eastern Mediterranean in the first week of June, which was widely described as a "dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran, has also caused concern in Washington, the officials said.

(Indeed, since it appears that Israel will use the strikes in order to start the US/Israeli war on Iran which has been planned since before the Neo-Fascists were installed to the White House.)

Mullen's visit was his second in seven months. Prior to December, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs had not been in Israel in more than 10 years.

He said Thursday that opening a third front now, with the US military already stretched thin by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "would be extremely stressful on us."


Israeli officials said Iran was also the main topic of conversation when Bush called Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Wednesday to express his condolences for the victims of the bulldozer attack in Jerusalem.

"All this is designed to throw cold water on any possible Israeli intentions," the officials said.

"They are worried by the atmosphere in Israel, and that reports of an inevitable attack have suddenly started to dominate the debate."

("Suddenly"? This is what this has been about from the beginning.)

Iran: Any attack on our nuclear facility will be beginning of war

By Amir Oren, Haaretz Correspondent

Tehran will consider any military action against its nuclear facilities as the beginning of a war, Iran's official news agency IRNA reported Friday.

(Which is exactly what the 'Neo-Conservatives' are hoping for.)

The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, was quoted as saying that any country that attacks Iran would regret doing so.

According to the report, Jafari has warned that such a step would be the beginning of war.

However, the general was also quoted as saying that he considers it unlikely Iran's adversaries would attempt an attack.

In a newspaper interview last week, Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would barrage Israel with missiles and choke off the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a narrow outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.

Israel carried out a large military exercise last month, seen throughout the media as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran.

(And throughout the intelligence community.)

U.S. admiral: Iran likely to attack Israel

Meanwhile, a U.S. admiral warned earlier this week that Iran is likely to launch ballistic missiles against Israel and the United States and the NATO alliance should prepare for it.

(So this is how they will get their war, a False Flag Attack? Iran wouldn't be so foolish as to try something like this, as they are trying to avoid a war, while only Israel and the US are trying to start one. However, according the Neo-Cons' definition of 'preemption', they would be well within their rights, since both countries' Extremists are conspiring to attack Iran ...)

Iran Will Cooperate with UN Probe into US/Israeli Allegations

Israel's Syrian Air Strike Was Aimed at Iran

The ME has had a Secretive Nuclear Power in its Midst for Years

Spooks Refuse to Toe Cheney's Line on Iran

IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance

Israel Considering Strike on Iran Despite US Intelligence Report,,2224052,00.html

US intelligence report heightens danger of Israeli strike on Iran

'Laptop of Death': Revising the NIE on Iran
The entire claim that Iran was building nuclear weapons rests on a laptop provided by a single, dubious source.

Israeli Extremists Prep for Nuclear Strike on Iran

Hersh: Israel Pressed me to Write Syrian Site was Nuclear

Sy Hersh confirms: Syrian Facility Bombed by Israel Not Nuclear

A Strike in the Dark - What did Israel bomb in Syria?
by Seymour M. Hersh

War Clouds Over Mideast┬žion=0&article=108719&d=8&m=4&y=2008

Israel & The 'Clash of Civilizations'

The largest threat to the region doesn't come from Iran: it comes from Israel's success in having had the US "neutralize" countries which it believes to be an existential threat to it's existence. However, there's just one little problem with this approach concerning Iran. Russia's diplomats have stated unequivocally that any attack against Iran will be perceived as an attack on Russia.

UN Nuclear Watchdog in Milestone Iran Deal

Iran Dumps US Dollar in Oil Trading, US Preps War

Israel's Extremists STILL Beating Iran War Drums

Iran Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, US Links

Israel, US Joint Plotting Against Iran, Attack ElBaredei llll

ElBaradei: Iran Not After Bomb

Israel Calls for US Blockade of Iran

US Report on 'Iranian Weapons' Postponed Due to Lack of Evidence

Pakistan May Turn Over U.S. Terrorists To Iran

Iranian Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, US Links

Bombing Iran: Extremists' Mad Clamor Persists

Carter: Israel Has At Least 150 Nukes

IAEA Again Confirms: No Weaponization in Iran

McLellan's Warning on Iran

'Hate Iran Week' at AIPAC

Israel Launches 'Iran Command' for War

Bush Resurrects a Whopper

US Distances Itself Publicly From Israeli Drive for Iran War

Anti-Iran Arguments Belie Fearmongering

Israel "Reassures West": No Iran Attack in 2008

Iran is Not the Belligerent Party

US Escalates 'Covert Operations' Against Iran

Oppose US/Israeli Neo-Fascism

This work is in the public domain
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.