“Permanent” Vs. “Enduring”
April 8th, 2008, 7:55 PM EDT
Think Progress has a link to a story in the Guardian, which obtained a copy of a confidential draft agreement concerning our future in Iraq.
The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked “secret” and “sensitive”, is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to “conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security” without time limit.
The authorisation is described as “temporary” and the agreement says the US “does not desire permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq”.
But we’ve built 14 “enduring bases“. I wonder what lasts longer, something “permanent” or something “enduring”.
Bases brought to you by Zales.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
The suprise is that the American government doesn’t charge the oil companies (maybe Israel could chip in also) working in Iraq for our military presence. Who else is benefitting. Not us working people.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Colonies built by Weyland-Yutani.
10 points if anyone knows the reference
September 6th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
A radio guy said we should charge Mexico a barrel of oil for every illegal.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pm