I was watching the excellent DVD documentary 'Why We Fight' a few nights ago...highly recommended!

One of the guest pundits mentioned that the US is currently building (or has built) 14 large military bases in Iraq...making the point that the US military has NO intention of EVER pulling out of that country.

It will remain a puppet state until...whenever.

Can anyone confirm this...links?

The US has done the same in Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan and Kazakhstan after first promising the bases were temporary. An Empire that can't win wars can only set up bases.

They can be abandoned any time or turned over to the Iraqi army.

They can be abandoned any time or turned over to the Iraqi army.

Precisely! And that's happened many times despite Gengi's intended-to-inflame remarks.

Precisely! And that's happened many times despite Gengi's intended-to-inflame remarks.

Like the ones in South korea?

Like the ones in South korea?

Exactly. Even though the 2nd Infantry Div. of the US 3rd Army still maintains an active presence along the DMZ, it's co-occupied by South Korean troops and we have turned some installations completely over to them.

Exactly. Even though the 2nd Infantry Div. of the US 3rd Army still maintains an active presence along the DMZ, it's co-occupied by South Korean troops and we have turned some installations completely over to them.

And when did this happen?


btw
The United States has stationed a substantial contingent of troops in the ROK since the Korean War. The American Troops are stationed in bases, of which most are camps. They are considered camps not for their lack of buildings or support structure; but, in order to represent a lack of permanence for the ROK Government.

And when did this happen?

Can't give you exact dates, at different times over the past ten years. Also, there were missle bases in Turkey that underwent a combination of 'retirement' and turnover. The same has happened in other countries that don't come to mind just at the moment.

do you need 14 bases in Iraq to guard the grave of Saddam?

We are pulling out of Saudi Arabia, last I heard. Into Iraq,of course.

We pulled out of Nicaragua,for a while. Grenada,too, - I think? And Vietnam - you can't say we didn't pull out of Vietnam.

So it is possible, that the US will be pulling out of Iraq. Just not very likely.

I don't think the US has ever abandoned such a large investment so soon.

I was watching the excellent DVD documentary 'Why We Fight' a few nights ago...highly recommended!

One of the guest pundits mentioned that the US is currently building (or has built) 14 large military bases in Iraq...making the point that the US military has NO intention of EVER pulling out of that country.

It will remain a puppet state until...whenever.

Can anyone confirm this...links?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/map-iraq-2004oct00.jpg

And oilfields:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_oil_2003.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm

Occupation by any other name...

So it is possible, that the US will be pulling out of Iraq. Just not very likely.

I don't think the US has ever abandoned such a large investment so soon.

destroying a nation is an investment?

destroying a nation is an investment? The destruction is overhead. They'd be just as happy to not do it.

They don't actually hate the Iraqis, after all. They just need them to quit interfering in the larger plans.

destroying a nation is an investment?

Yes for the private contractors whom pay for the Repulicrats and Demican Campaigns for election. The American people pay the cost, private equity companys take the money, great scam if you can get it.

destroying a nation is an investment?

Sure. We destroyed Germany and Japan ....and everything turned out just peachy-keen, didn't it? We should do the same with Iraq and Afghanistan, then everything would turn out just peachy-keen.

Baron Max

Generally, when you half-ass a war, you get what you pay for (Vietnam, Iraq)... but when you go at it with everything you've got, and utterly annihilate your enemies, you stand a better chance of rebuilding them into something worth the work (Germany, Japan, ). Since we've half-assed the invasion and half-assed the reconstruction, the results will invariably be half-assed.

Like Colon Powell said, "We need to be slow to war, but deadly when we get there, but when we [I]are there, we had better be the BIGGEST son of a bitch on the block." We weren't and unfortunately aren't.

~String

for different POV and suggestion:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1386390&postcount=1

String, you really don't get it.

The war was won quickly, at the time of "Mission Accomplished". It is the occupation that is lost....

Nobody likes a conquerer....

It is the occupation that is lost.... Nobody likes a conquerer....

We're not occupying or conquering anything. And interestingly, the USA has never done so in all of her history. So what makes you think we'd suddenly start conquering and occupying other nations of the world?

Baron Max

An Empire that can't win wars can only set up bases.

Based upon exactly WHAT kind of military experience? Based upon what example of history? All nations, imperial or not, have historically set up military outposts in important centers of the world. Indeed, it is only WHEN those outposts are abandoned that the empire ends up falling.

~String

We're not occupying or conquering anything. And interestingly, the USA has never done so in all of her history. So what makes you think we'd suddenly start conquering and occupying other nations of the world?

Baron Max

Only 702 military bases in 130 countries.

Only 702 military bases in 130 countries.

And?

Baron Max

And?

Baron Max

And:

The exact number of nuclear weapons possessed by the United States is difficult to determine. Different treaties and organizations have different criteria for reporting nuclear weapons, especially those held in reserve, and those being dismantled or rebuilt:

* As of 1999, the U.S. was said to have 12,000 nuclear weapons of all types stockpiled. [13]
* In its Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) declaration for 2003, the U.S. listed 5968 deployed warheads as defined by START rules.[14]
* For 2004, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists listed the U.S. with about 7,000 operational and 3,000 reserve warheads. [15]

In 2002, the United States and Russia agreed in the SORT treaty to reduce their deployed stockpiles to not more than 2,200 warheads each. In 2003, the US rejected Russian proposals to further reduce both nation's nuclear stockpiles to 1,500 each. The US has adopted a plan to modernise and update its allowed weapons as well as investigate the possibility of manufacturing "micronuclear weapons" for use on the battlefield and against bunkers.

A 2001 Nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The US Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress canceled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request. According to Jane's Information Group, the program may still continue under a new name.

In 2005 US revised its nuclear strategy, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, to use nuclear weapons preemptively against adversary WMDs or overwhelming conventional forces.

And?

Baron Max

You cannot debate logically with someone who has a Blame America first mentality.

To the marxist, there is only one constant exploiter and exploitee. All action committed by the powerful is immediately accepted as a position of nefarious force. It can never be anything to the contrary.

The way to battle the powerful? Several ways not the least of which is protest.

This is a dominant theme from the radical left on this forum. They are all down for the struggle.

The best part of their argument is that they admit America is powerful, or they would not be protesting.

Most of them are absolutely clueless as to their nature of marxism!!

You cannot debate logically with someone who has a Blame America first mentality.

To the marxist, there is only one constant exploiter and exploitee. All action committed by the powerful is immediately accepted as a position of nefarious force. It can never be anything to the contrary.

The way to battle the powerful? Several ways not the least of which is protest.

This is a dominant theme from the radical left on this forum. They are all down for the struggle.

The best part of their argument is that they admit America is powerful, or they would not be protesting.

Most of them are absolutely clueless as to their nature of marxism!!

Marxist?:confused:

And:

And the relevance?

Marxist?:confused:

Of course, you're confused. You have been indoctrinated for a long time.

And the relevance?

There's all kinds of occupation.

Of course, you're confused. You have been indoctrinated for a long time.

Thats hilarious coming from an ignorant twerp with no capacity for independent thought.

Thats hilarious coming from an ignorant twerp with no capacity for independent thought.

And the beat goes on. Thanks, for proving my point.

Just one challenge. Would care to prove your point that I have no capacity for independent thought?

And the beat goes on. Thanks, for proving my point.

Just one challenge. Would care to prove your point that I have no capacity for independent thought?

Sure, I'm not a Marxist. I'm Indian and I'm pretty conservative about many issues.

There's all kinds of occupation.

Having nukes means we are occupiers, I get it.

Let me see if I can extend this game any?

Let me see, what event that has nothing to do with another can I say that it means.... Oh forget it, I am incapable of an independent thought anyway.

Hey, I am starting to get it.

Sure, I'm not a Marxist. I'm Indian and I'm pretty conservative about many issues.

Yep, that proves it.

I know when I have been beaten.

Disclaimer: Of course, I am well aware that you did not prove it.

Yep, that proves it.

I know when I have been beaten.

Disclaimer: Of course, I am well aware that you did not prove it.

Anyone who is anti-US must be marxist?:p

Having nukes means we are occupiers, I get it.

Let me see if I can extend this game any?

Let me see, what event that has nothing to do with another can I say that it means.... Oh forget it, I am incapable of an independent thought anyway.

Hey, I am starting to get it.

I doubt you are getting anything; you guys are so brainwashed that you think its great to have a moron for a president who spends your money chasing an enemy that does not exist.

Reminds me of 1984, where the state is forever involved in perpetual war without a rational basis.

Anyone who is anti-US must be marxist?:p


Wrong!!

But then your reply was to be expected.

It also proves another point. That is that you did not read my original statement. You saw a buzzword and responded.

Wrong!!

But then your reply was to be expected.

It also proves another point. That is that you did not read my original statement. You saw a buzzword and responded.

You cannot debate logically with someone who has a Blame America first mentality.

To the marxist, there is only one constant exploiter and exploitee. All action committed by the powerful is immediately accepted as a position of nefarious force. It can never be anything to the contrary.

The way to battle the powerful? Several ways not the least of which is protest.

This is a dominant theme from the radical left on this forum. They are all down for the struggle.

The best part of their argument is that they admit America is powerful, or they would not be protesting.

Most of them are absolutely clueless as to their nature of marxism!!

Yeah right!:p

I doubt you are getting anything; you guys are so brainwashed that you think its great to have a moron for a president who spends your money chasing an enemy that does not exist.

Reminds me of 1984, where the state is forever involved in perpetual war without a rational basis.

I wonder how many other times you have used this type of response to others? I bet it is a high number.

Yeah right!:p

Would you care to point out where I said anything that implies that you are a marxist if you are anti-american?

Would you care to point out where I said anything that implies that you are a marxist if you are anti-american?

You seem to be a very confused fella; perhaps you don't understand your own writing.

You seem to be a very confused fella; perhaps you don't understand your own writing.

Then perhaps, you can show me the error of my ways?

Then perhaps, you can show me the error of my ways?

Sure :D

http://www.cagle.com/working/060125/cohen.gif

Sure :D

http://www.cagle.com/working/060125/cohen.gif

I see.

In other words, you cannot show how I do not understand my own writing.

I see.

In other words, you cannot show how I do not understand my own writing.

Er, do you understand irony?:confused:

fuggetit.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

Ah, thanks!

We're not occupying or conquering anything. . We have recently conquered, and are now occupying, Iraq. The pacification of the natives, and the installation of a client government, is not going smoothly. And interestingly, the USA has never done so in all of her history Tell that to the Mexicans, Hawaiians, Micronesians, Puerto Ricans, Panamanians - - -
All nations, imperial or not, have historically set up military outposts in important centers of the world. Indeed, it is only WHEN those outposts are abandoned that the empire ends up falling. China didn't. Mexico, Canada, Australia, India, didn't. Empires only, or wannabees, do that. And I don't think you can claim to be an empire, on one hand, and deny imperial bahivior, on the other.

I have to admit America is an empire and I am quite proud to belong I may not agree with the tactics but I do enjoy the prosperity. All successful groups from cells to nations try to spread out and hog the resources. American society is quite good at this 4% of population=90% of the resource consumption. This is not sustainable most rational people understand this but like a firework it is beautiful to watch. I hope that we are able t access and loot space before earths natural resources are gone.

We're not occupying or conquering anything. And interestingly, the USA has never done so in all of her history. So what makes you think we'd suddenly start conquering and occupying other nations of the world?

Baron Max

Y'know it just hit me. You got your country by getting rid of the original inhabitants, if thats not occupation I don't know what is.

Y'know it just hit me. You got your country by getting rid of the original inhabitants, if thats not occupation I don't know what is.

We didn't get rid of them - I'm living proof. But what about the Spanish in Central and South America, eh?

We didn't get rid of them - I'm living proof. But what about the Spanish in Central and South America, eh?

Darn, you mean some buggers escaped?:eek:

Darn, you mean some buggers escaped?:eek:

TONS of us, in fact. :) Many tribes had no trouble with the white-eyes. Yes, many of them had serious trouble but it was far from all.

TONS of us, in fact. :) Many tribes had no trouble with the white-eyes. Yes, many of them had serious trouble but it was far from all.

So how many were killed, exactly?

So how many were killed, exactly?

No one has any exact numbers. But it was far too many. However, more survived than died.

No one has any exact numbers. But it was far too many. However, more survived than died.

Ah, we don't do body counts? 300 years is a long time to keep track of bodies, I guess.

Ah, we don't do body counts? 300 years is a long time to keep track of bodies, I guess.

Actually, for what you're talking about, 400 years would be much closer. And there were quite a few records kept at the time but most of them have been lost.

Actually, for what you're talking about, 400 years would be much closer. And there were quite a few records kept at the time but most of them have been lost.

Yeah, pretty sad. So how do you know that more people survived than died?

more died than survived sam, don't let them BS you.

more died than survived sam, don't let them BS you.

Depends on how dense/sparse the original population was, its not reasonable to have suppositions without any historical records.

we slaughtered them by the truckload.

we slaughtered them by the truckload.

I doubt it, not only were they better with their arrows, the original guns were heavy and took some time to reload. Would not have been possible. I think it was the advances in weaponry that finally did them in.

yes, the Gatling gun shredded those poor slobs.

more died than survived sam, don't let them BS you.

I think you've been watching far too many movies. :D I don't have any hard numbers handy, are you claiming that you do??

yes, the Gatling gun shredded those poor slobs.

I read somewhere it was fashionable in Europe of the time to display Indian scalps in their homes. :)

american men wore their labias as headbands.

Sure. We destroyed Germany and Japan ....and everything turned out just peachy-keen, didn't it? We should do the same with Iraq and Afghanistan, then everything would turn out just peachy-keen.

Baron Max

You're not even American so STFU with this we shit.

Er, do you understand irony?:confused:

fuggetit.


No, no, I get it. Believe me, I fully get it. I wonder if you truly get it.

You're not even American so STFU with this we shit.

What, the Baron is not American? Where is he from?

By the way there were a few differences between Japan/Germany and Afg./Iraq, but Max wouldn't understand that...

all your base are belong to me.

Us, us us us!

no, i am double-crossing us. all the base are belong to me only.