1
   

US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq

 
 
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:31 am
Quote:
US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday May 23, 2005
The Guardian

US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.

Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.

"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.

A senior US official in Baghdad said yesterday: "It has always been a main plank of our exit strategy to withdraw from the urban areas as and when Iraqi forces are trained up and able to take the strain. It is much better for all concerned that Iraqis police themselves."

Under the plan, for which the official said there was no "hard-and-fast" deadline, US troops would gradually concentrate inside four heavily fortified air bases, from where they would provide "logistical support and quick reaction capability where necessary to Iraqis". The bases would be situated in the north, south, west and centre of the country.

He said the pace of the "troop consolidation" would be dictated by the level of the insurgency and the progress of Iraq's fledgling security structures.

A report in yesterday's Washington Post said the new bases would be constructed around existing airfields to ensure supply lines and troop mobility. It named the four probable locations as: Tallil in the south; Al Asad in the west; Balad in the centre and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north.

US officers told the paper that the bases would have a more permanent character to them, with more robust buildings and structures than can be seen at most existing bases in Iraq. The new buildings would be constructed to withstand direct mortar fire.

A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: "We expect these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the domestic forces, to be handed over when the US leaves."


Source

Imagine what THIS will cost us, who will get the contracts, and IF we aren't planning to be there for much longer, will the Iraq government compensate us for the bases we leave them?

Or, do you think we're really plnning to stay awhile?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 666 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:35 am
For a disturbing look at plans which have been made for many years now, you might visit . . .

The Project for a New American Century

. . . among the founders of which are such names as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle . . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:47 am
but there is nothing new

take a look at some of the bases one of our former rulers built

http://www.castlewales.com/edwrdcas.html
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:47 am
If it's part of their plan to withdraw, why not just house them cheaply in double wide mobile homes?

After all, that's good enough for the crowded schools where our children are educated.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:58 am
Ol' Eddy one was being promoted by his daddy, Harry three, as the first prince of wales . . . but Llewellyn the Great got in the way. Then Llewellyn ap Griffith had the gaul to make the same stand. That Eddy one was a right mean son of a bitch, though, and the vengeance he wreaked was long and bloody.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:15 am
"Imagine what THIS will cost us, who will get the contracts, and IF we aren't planning to be there for much longer, will the Iraq government compensate us for the bases we leave them? "

IF we build them we will never be compensated by the Iraqi Gov't just like Saudi Arabia never really compensated us for the bases we built there.

I do not believe we need them there if our intention is to leave (which we should). We have bases on Qatar which is close enough.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:23 am
This is analogous to me, after a period of long and steamy lovemaking, informing squinney that I was taking a viagara in preparation for pulling out soon. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:28 am
'Cept I could roll over and go to sleep and tell you to deal with it yourself and it wouldn't cost me anything. Rolling Eyes

But, I get your point.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:31 am
squinney wrote:
'Cept I could roll over and go to sleep and tell you to deal with it yourself and it wouldn't cost me anything. Rolling Eyes

But, I get your point.


Unfotuntely we are not allowed the "wife option" in this case. Oh that we were.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:07 pm
Having long term military installations in such a strategic location is merely payback for ridding Iraq of a monster. There will be a status of forces agreement with Iraq whereby we will pay outrageous rent for sand which we will turn into concrete, and build air conditioned buildings where our people can find refuge from the sand flies. We will agree to hire thousands of Muslims who can strap on explosives and detonate them in our chow lines, and all the while there will be demonstrations against the desecration of their Mosques which they will build just outside the bases so they can send snipers up in the minerets to kill our troops and of course the prayer areas will provide storage for the grenade launchers to blow up our convoys as they leave the bases.

This is the price we pay to correct an injustice perpetrated by the real imperialists, the British, when they carved up the ME in the early nineteen hundreds......... I'm standing by for the sky to fall on me for uttering such heretical nonsense.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 12:38 pm
Setanta wrote:
For a disturbing look at plans which have been made for many years now, you might visit . . .

The Project for a New American Century

. . . among the founders of which are such names as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle . . . .**


funny how this just keeps turning up... like a bad penny. it's the whole enchilada layed out pretty as you please, signed by the illustrious big brains that conjured it up, and even has their names affixed in all of their god blessed glory.

and still, so many continue to label it "liberal paranoid claptrap".

so. after several years of this, i'm left with only 2 conclusions;

1) the people that are calling me kookoo for pointing it out haven't taken the time to actually look at the site and read the cute li'l manifestos posted there. most of which appear to be neo-conservative extremist, world domination wet dreams.

or:

2) they have read it and heartily agree that the united states is not only under a blessed mandate to rule the world, but is damn well entitled to do so.

or maybe, there's a 3rd option. some people just don't care as long as they get tax breaks.

starting to smell a little bit roman to me.

** as an aside... although the original web site mysteriously disappeared a couple of years ago, you can still find mention of the fact that several of the pnac'ers were also founders of a group called the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. but i'm sure it's just a coincidence.

being concerned doesn't make you paranoid. just aware.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 01:18 pm
DTOM

There is yet another option. That many read and understand pnac and neocon aims, but the shock it engenders sends them into a state of cognitive dissonance leaving them powerless to respond.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 01:25 pm
DTOM

I like this one:


2) they have read it and heartily agree that the united states is not only under a blessed mandate to rule the world, but is damn well entitled to do so.

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 01:31 pm
rayban1 wrote:
DTOM

I like this one:


2) they have read it and heartily agree that the united states is not only under a blessed mandate to rule the world, but is damn well entitled to do so.

Twisted Evil


Such an idea has worked well for every empire throughout history.

I guess all roads do lead back to Bush.
And that road is paved with memos from intelligence agencies.....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 01:32 pm
Whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 02:37 pm
rayban1 wrote:
DTOM

I like this one:


2) they have read it and heartily agree that the united states is not only under a blessed mandate to rule the world, but is damn well entitled to do so.

Twisted Evil


wow. i must have missed that in the constitution. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 12:05 pm
All those kids made stupid by NCLB will have to have some place to go.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 12:44:20