0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:19 am
LOL right you are Tico Smile It is 1984. (Thwapping self for brain fart.)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:20 am
In any event, he is not really a liberal writer.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:24 am
Who, Orwell? Au contrare. He is one of the very best illustrations of a classical liberal that I can think of.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:24 am
Double post.........
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:27 am
Fox, I never thought of you as having "brain fart." Your writing style is excellent, and I enjoy reading your posts even if we disagree on many fronts. Wink
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:33 am
foxfrye, I get lazy at times and don't want to scroll back to the previous page. I thought you guys were still talking about Christopher Hitchens. I don't know who Orwell is.

Unlike most folks here I haven't went to college nor have I read a lot of political books. I just remembered Christopher Hitchens from the clinton era and knew he wasn't a liberal. I also remembered several statements of his about arabs in general on talk news shows and he never was a fan. (I hope you don't ask me to back that up, chances are I wouldn't be able to)
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:39 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I not only read the book but took a college course based on it and had to write a major paper based on the ideas within it. You think "1986" is little known? I think it is his best known work. Or were you being intentionally facetious for effect?

Just facetious, you provided the effect :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:43 am
And thank you C.I. I always figured reasonable people can reasonably disagree and almost all of us can find common ground to agree on if we want to.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:48 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Actually, I think "1986" must be one of his lesser-known works, since the book I studied in 1984 was titled differently.

you've read 86 then?
Good catch, Guess I should edit before I submit andmaybe try typing with just one finger instead of two....
I stand by my more than two statement ... a typo does'nt changge that
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:19 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I not only read the book but took a college course based on it and had to write a major paper based on the ideas within it. You think "1986" is little known? I think it is his best known work. Or were you being intentionally facetious for effect?

Was that a sequel by Orwell to his "1984?"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:22 pm
No, it was a brain fart. Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:25 pm
I wish you'd quit using that term, cause it makes me feel I'm the king of "BF." Wink
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:28 pm
was it Huxley who wrote "Brave Old Europe?" or am I thinking of the symphony "From the New World" by Dvorszak.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:43 pm
Reality bites .........

Quote:
Digging In

Operation Enduring US Bases? When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told reporters last December that he expected U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for another four years, he was merely confirming what any visitor to the country could have surmised. The omnipresence of the giant defense contractor KBR (formerly Kellogg, Brown & Root), the shipments of concrete and other construction materials, and the transformation of decrepit Iraqi military bases into fortified American enclaves?-complete with Pizza Huts and DVD stores?-are just the most obvious signs that the United States has been digging in for the long haul. It's a far cry from administration assurances after the invasion that the troops could start withdrawing from Iraq as early as the fall of 2003. And it is hardly consistent with a prediction by Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, that the troops would be out of Iraq within months, or with Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi's guess that the U.S. occupation would last two years. Take, for example, Camp Victory North, a sprawling base near Baghdad International Airport, which the U.S. military seized just before the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

Over the past year, KBR contractors have built a small American city where about 14,000 troops are living, many hunkered down inside sturdy, wooden, air-conditioned bungalows called SEA (for Southeast Asia) huts, replicas of those used by troops in Vietnam. There's a Burger King, a gym, the country's biggest PX?-and, of course, a separate compound for KBR workers, who handle both construction and logistical support. Although Camp Victory North remains a work in progress today, when complete, the complex will be twice the size of Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo?-currently one of the largest overseas posts built since the Vietnam War.
Such a heavy footprint seems counterproductive, given the growing antipathy felt by most Iraqis toward the U.S. military occupation.

Yet Camp Victory North appears to be a harbinger of America's future in Iraq. Over the past year, the Pentagon has reportedly been building up to 14 "enduring" bases across the country?-long-term encampments that could house as many as 100,000 troops indefinitely. John Pike, a military analyst who runs the research group GlobalSecurity.org, has identified a dozen of these bases, including three large facilities in and around Baghdad: the Green Zone, Camp Victory North, and Camp al-Rasheed, the site of Iraq's former military airport. Also listed are Camp Cook, just north of Baghdad, a former Republican Guard "military city" that has been converted into a giant U.S. camp; Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad; Camp Anaconda, a 15-square-mile facility near Balad that housed 17,000 soldiers as of May 2004 and was being expanded for an additional 3,000; and Camp Marez, next to Mosul Airport, where, in December, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the base's dining tent, killing 13 U.S. troops and four KBR contractors eating lunch alongside the soldiers.

At these bases, KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary that works in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, has been extending runways, improving security perimeters, and installing a variety of structures ranging from rigid-wall huts to aircraft hangars. Although the Pentagon considers most of the construction to be "temporary"?-designed to last up to three years?-similar facilities have remained in place for much longer at other "enduring" American bases, including Kosovo's Camp Bondsteel, which opened in 1999, and Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in place since the mid-1990s.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:48 pm
Anyone who thinks we're going up and abandon this investment any time soon is out of their minds.

It just wouldn't be good business, yaknow?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:52 pm
I'd say: Decades before the troops leave....
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:01 pm
old europe, When we consider the facts that both Germany and Japan "really" surrendered after the war, we've stayed there "decades" even without the insurgency.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:05 pm
Now you guys, the oil is going to pay for that stuff
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:05 pm
The day that Germany or Japan or anybody tells us we aren't wanted there, however, we pack up and leave. George Bush hasn't backed down on any promise he has made to date, and there is no reason to think he won't honor his promise to leave Iraq when the ruling authority requests that. At this time they are requesting we stay.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 01:10 pm
Quote:
The day that Germany or Japan or anybody tells us we aren't wanted there, however, we pack up and leave. George Bush hasn't backed down on any promise he has made to date, and there is no reason to think he won't honor his promise to leave Iraq when the ruling authority requests that. At this time they are requesting we stay.


Funnily enough, when you control the ruling authority, they don't ask you to leave...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 05:29:47