0
   

U S Permanent Bases in Iraq?

 
 
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 06:57 pm
For two or three years I have seen it around that the Americans are building four huge bases in Iraq, permanent ones, meaning, no withdrawal would ever take place. Is there factual evidence regarding this? The media has never mentioned it in any newscasts I have watched.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,139 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 07:06 pm
Yes, I read that about four years ago.It's also in the PNACs (Project For a New American Century)plan. In fact It's kind of common knowledge amongst my friends.I guess the plan is that once a permanent base is established in the middle east a larger war can be coducted from there.

Basically, Hell no we don't plan to leave.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 07:07 pm
That is common knowledge, edgar. The amount of money they are spending on the embassy is staggering.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 07:36 pm
Amigo wrote:
Yes, I read that about four years ago.It's also in the PNACs (Project For a New American Century)plan. In fact It's kind of common knowledge amongst my friends.I guess the plan is that once a permanent base is established in the middle east a larger war can be coducted from there.

Basically, Hell no we don't plan to leave.


So,does that mean we plan to conduct war from Germany,or Spain,or Japan,or Iceland,or Okinawa,or England,or Korea,or Italy,or any of the other countries we have bases in?
0 Replies
 
Lady J
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 07:46 pm
Very good point, mysteryman. Simply because the US has Military bases around the world does not necessarily mean there will or would be continuing war in those countries. In fact, there is not, to my knowledge, which is slim and always a bit skewed. From what I understand, the countries that DO have US bases in them, are grateful, if not for anything else than the revenues they generate for their own country. They may not always agree with American politics....we won't go there....but money does speak.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 07:51 pm
mysteryman wrote:
So,does that mean we plan to conduct war from Germany,or Spain,or Japan,or Iceland,or Okinawa,or England,or Korea,or Italy,or any of the other countries we have bases in?


It did untill the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc countries collapsed.

Given those purposes, those bases are obsolete, and are superfluous to the new front of the new war the US is fighting. The US is looking to close down or pare those bases in Europe.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 07:56 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Yes, I read that about four years ago.It's also in the PNACs (Project For a New American Century)plan. In fact It's kind of common knowledge amongst my friends.I guess the plan is that once a permanent base is established in the middle east a larger war can be coducted from there.

Basically, Hell no we don't plan to leave.


So,does that mean we plan to conduct war from Germany,or Spain,or Japan,or Iceland,or Okinawa,or England,or Korea,or Italy,or any of the other countries we have bases in?
Yea
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 07:58 pm
Amigo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Yes, I read that about four years ago.It's also in the PNACs (Project For a New American Century)plan. In fact It's kind of common knowledge amongst my friends.I guess the plan is that once a permanent base is established in the middle east a larger war can be coducted from there.

Basically, Hell no we don't plan to leave.


So,does that mean we plan to conduct war from Germany,or Spain,or Japan,or Iceland,or Okinawa,or England,or Korea,or Italy,or any of the other countries we have bases in?
Yea


What war are we planning to conduct FROM THOSE BASES?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 08:00 pm
The bases beyond the front will be closed or lost.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 08:02 pm
Amigo,
Your signature line says it all about you..."Ignore me, i'm crazy."
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 08:09 pm
I hear that alot.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 08:45 pm
Lady J wrote:
Very good point, mysteryman. Simply because the US has Military bases around the world does not necessarily mean there will or would be continuing war in those countries. In fact, there is not, to my knowledge, which is slim and always a bit skewed. From what I understand, the countries that DO have US bases in them, are grateful, if not for anything else than the revenues they generate for their own country. They may not always agree with American politics....we won't go there....but money does speak.
It sure does speak and it says "I love war".

Perpetual war
Perpetual profit

Then if you also follow the money you'll see it all ends up in the same places.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:04 pm
It's not perpetual. When the money runs out, the game is over.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 07:00 am
My reason for raising the issue, I believe that if the American public understood what the bases imply, demands to end the occupation would increase significantly. Which makes me wonder about Democrats, who never mention such things.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 10:33 am
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

Quote:
Last year, as troops poured over the Kuwait border to invade Iraq, the U.S. military set up at least 120 forward operating bases. Then came hundreds of expeditionary and temporary bases that were to last between six months and a year for tactical operations while providing soldiers with such comforts as e-mail and Internet access.

Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.

As the U.S. scales back its military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq provides an option for an administration eager to maintain a robust military presence in the Middle East and intent on a muscular approach to seeding democracy in the region. The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006, according to military planners.

"Is this a swap for the Saudi bases?" asked Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq. "I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy chief of operations for the coalition in Iraq, said the military engineers are trying to prepare for any eventuality.

"This is a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East," Kimmitt said. "[But] the engineering vision is well ahead of the policy vision. What the engineers are saying now is: Let's not be behind the policy decision. Let's make this place ready so we can address policy options."

To that end, the U.S. plans to operate from former Iraqi bases in Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk and in areas near Nasiriyah, near Tikrit, near Fallujah and between Irbil and Kirkuk.

There also are plans to renovate and enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul, and rebuild 70 miles of road on the main route for U.S. troops headed north.


http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
Quote:
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 02:09 pm
If this is the case, what do you suspect the Dems will do with said bases if/when they occupy the Whitehouse?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 02:22 pm
Probably whatever the Republicans were going to do with them.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 03:03 pm
I agree.

I don't think they really have a choice because the other world powers are planing the same thing so it's a race for Globalization. It's a "We have to or they will" kind of thing. Except some people believe behind both sides are the same people
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 04:00 pm
So globalization and the PNAC agenda have now become synonymous?
I find that odd.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:24 pm
Hell, I don't know. I read too much.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » U S Permanent Bases in Iraq?
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/14/2025 at 10:06:17