 |
People from all over the country are organizing to om all over the country are organizing to converge on Washington, D.C., to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.
On Saturday, March 20, 2010, there will be a massive National March & Rally in D.C. Gather at 12 noon at the White House (Lafayette Park).
There will be coinciding mass marches on March 20 in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The national actions are initiated by a large number of organizations and prominent individuals. To see a list of the initiators, click this link.
We will march together to say “No Colonial-type Wars and Occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Haiti!" We will march together to say "No War Against Iran!” We will march together to say “No War for Empire Anywhere!”
Instead of war, we will demand funds so that every person can have a job, free and universal health care, decent schools, and affordable housing.
March 20 is the seventh anniversary of the criminal war of aggression launched by Bush and Cheney against Iraq(They are still blaming Bush for everything even though this is Obamas wars now). One million or more Iraqis have died. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops have lost their lives or been maimed, and continue to suffer a whole host of enduring problems from this terrible war. (Why are they counting the Iraqi's that were killed by Saddam Hussein in that million Iraqi's killed?)
This is the time for united action. The slogans on banners may differ, but all those who carry them should be marching shoulder to shoulder.
Oh so often, Isenhowers warning rings as true today as it did back around 50 years ago:"Beware the military/industrial complex". While I think the differance between Bush & Obama is that Bush wanted us to stay there as a "colonial" force to protect our oil interests, Obama does not. Yet having said that, I think the American people have had enough of our blood and dollars being pissed away for others to get rich on. So yes, I join the refrain: President Obama, let us get out of these wars - now.
ReplyDeleteMike, when the likes of Ahmadinejad, AQ, Damascus, Hamas, etc. are put down and no longer a threat to the world, then that's when we leave.
ReplyDeleteWe walk away, they WILL come after you, me and everyone of those people on the linked list that Chris posted.
People need to stop the insanity of 'blood for money' talk....it's blood for survival.
Mike you know we get almost non of our oil from Iraq. So why would you keep using that same old talking points from moveon.org? If we don't get our oil from Iraq then your argument is mute.
ReplyDeletevomamike is one of those truthers who think 9/11 was a plot by the bush administration to start a war with Iraq to steal all their oil. crazy libs and their crazy conspiracy theiroies. If gore was president and the attacks happened I guess we would have just put our tails between our legs and pissed ourselves, metaphorically speaking, as a nation. In the end it works out fine, Bush kept us safe and the libs had someone to attack for 8 years. now the shoe is on the other foot.
ReplyDeleteObama sucks. Democrats suck. America rules.
ReplyDeleteWe MUST Keep Pressure on All That Threaten Us Either Abroad Or Here! Getting into Defensive Mode is Not The Answer. Terrorist Looking Over Their Shoulders For Danger is MUCH Better Than Citizens Here Doing the Same Thing!
ReplyDeleteOil is NOT the Objective Security is Plain and Simple!
Why Those Gasoline Prices Going UP!
Chris, are you protesting the afghan war?
ReplyDeleteAs for blood for oil? here's the reality
Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer — the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel
The lure is obvious: Iraq's 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves are outmatched only by Saudi Arabia, Canada and Iran, and geologists believe vast amounts more lie unexplored in the Western Desert.
Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html#ixzz0i4kIKqz6
Just Out Of Curiosity What Are This NATIONS OIL Reserves and WHY Do We Depend on Middle East For OIL! Why Do We Not Have More Refineries Here That Would Provide MORE Jobs Than This Administration Has Created?
ReplyDeleteSpecifically the information can be found here for imports from March 2008.
ReplyDeleteThe top 15 countries that the USA imported from are:
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Mar-08 Feb-08 YTD 2008 Mar-07 YTD 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 1,795 1,920 1,886 1,780 1,825
SAUDI ARABIA 1,535 1,614 1,541 1,216 1,325
MEXICO 1,232 1,231 1,220 1,621 1,475
NIGERIA 1,154 982 1,102 1,290 1,156
VENEZUELA 858 945 980 1,036 1,033
IRAQ 773 780 697 523 464
ANGOLA 384 341 433 696 570
ALGERIA 247 191 269 501 484
ECUADOR 231 169 217 191 214
KUWAIT 199 261 232 288 208
BRAZIL 188 169 175 209 174
COLOMBIA 135 220 174 108 107
RUSSIA 108 80 68 193 92
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 105 97 98 79 58
CHAD 101 89 103 66 74
Sources: http://www.eia.doe.gov
Joe as you can see the USA doesn't get very much oil from Iraq. You have to stop with all your cdonspirocy theories on the war for oil. You sound like a talking head for movementon.org.
Donald M. Snow | December 18, 2009
ReplyDeleteThe announcement last week that the Iraqi government had awarded foreign contracts for the exploitation of a number of its oil fields created a remarkably mild, one-day reaction in the popular press. The gist of the awards, of course, was that virtually everybody, from the Russians and Chinese to the Malaysians and Angolans, were given contracts on one field or another, while American companies were essentially left holding the bag, with participation in a couple of relatively minor deals. This is not how this aspect of the Iraq war was supposed to work out, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s lame comment that it shows private enterprise is alive and well in Baghdad did little to assuage those who expected more for Uncle Sam.
Two not especially complimentary explanations have snuck forward into the public dialogue. One is that the Iraqi government of al-Maliki is simply snubbing its nose at the Americans and showing that if we expected any gratitude for invading, conquering, occupying, dismantling, then putting back together Iraq six and a half years after the fact, we can forget it. The other is that it shows the failure of what some believe to have been the primary underlying motivation for invading Iraq in the first place, which was to gain control–or at least influence–over Iraqi oil reserves for the future. My book, What After Iraq?, is among the places where this argument can be found. Defenders of the war even argue this demonstrates that oil was not the motive in the first place, or we would not be standing by so docilely as the Iraqis sell it to other people.
Does this prove that the United States has lost out? As someone who has believed all along that the war was all about oil, my answer is that it does not. The reason for this assertion is not that the United States failed to get in on the deals let; it is that the oil in which the United States is most interested is NOT the oil that was part of the deals. If anything, the pattern of dealing suggests a more sinister underpinning that has always been there, slightly below the surface.
The key here is the location of the oil. About half of Iraq’s oil is located in the south and southeast of Iraq, in the Shiite areas such as Rumalia, Majnoon,and Halfaya, and the other half is in Kurdistan in the north. The southern fields, because they are in Shiite territory, have never been the prize for Americans; it is the Kurdish fields that American oil companies and the government have coveted. The contracts were let on almost exclusively Shiite fields in the south and southeast where the American claim is weakest, as is likely American influence after we leave. The down side is that this is the oil easiest to access and get to market, whereas Kurdish oil is more remote and has less infrastructure supporting it. Kurdistan, however, is the part of Iraq where American interest and prestige is highest, and it is by no means beyond the range of possibilities that the eventual outcome of Iraq will be a bifurcated country with a wholly or largely independent Kurdistan. Such a country would almost certainly be friendlier to the United States than the rest of Iraq.
One major artifact of the war, after all, has been to encourage Kurdish autonomy that has some of the trappings of independence, and the United States bears no small amount of responsibility for that occurrence. Iraqi Shiites may feel no comraderie with the Americans and may revel in thumbing their noses at the United States; the Kurds, on the other hand, have every reason to be grateful to the United States.