Are permanent military bases the real goal?

[Black&Tan]

This is an opinion piece from The Christian Science Monitor, which I just finished reading on Yahoo. I hate to say it, but I think they've hit the nail on the head. Iraq is not a temporary invasion but a permanent occupation. Plus Bush was recently quoted as saying he was making it impossible for the next President to extricate the US from Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/yschorr08;_ylt=AglMNxMNceFLS3CCzsAYaYfMWM0F

New White House plan: Keep US troops in Iraq permanently.

Washington - President Bush used to be fond of saying that American troops would stay in Iraq as long as needed and not a day longer. He isn't saying that anymore.

The new word from the White House is that American troops would be stationed in Iraq permanently on the "Korean model." The analogy is a little strained. The United States has helped to mend the rift between North and South Korea since 1953. But South Korea has had no internal insurgency to worry about.

The plan for permanent bases in Iraq must have been long in the making. The president ignored a recommendation of the Baker-Hamilton Commission that he state that America seeks no permanent bases in Iraq. At one point last year, the Senate and House passed an amendment to the military-spending bill banning the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq. The bill went to conference and then the ban on bases, adopted by both chambers, mysteriously disappeared.

The building of four bases along with a gigantic new American embassy in the Green Zone on the Tigris River has been moving along rapidly. The bases will have runways two miles long to accommodate the largest American planes. The Balad base north of Baghdad covers 14 square miles. Another base is planned for the area that was ancient Babylon.

The new embassy, which will be the largest American mission in the world, will be complete with swimming pool and commissary. Retired General Anthony Zinni has said that permanent bases are "a stupid idea." He said that they will damage America's image in the whole region.

These huge installations must be intended for more than Iraqi stabilization. Former President Jimmy Carter said in a speech in February of last year that "the reason we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region." And few are missing the point that bases in Iraq will keep American might on Iran's doorstep.

• Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at National Public Radio.

[skunk]

Sure: the idea was put forward as an integral part of the PNAC, years ago. This is colonialism, pure and simple.

[Queso]

Then it's a shame the Iraqi Government are likely going to vote in December for the Americans to leave and the overwhelming majority of Iraqis don't want them there either. What will it take before Bush finally gets the message? Another Beirut style bomb killing hundreds of troops in one go?

[Black&Tan]

When does it all end?

Will ordinary Iraqis and American soldiers die daily for years to come? Congress has proven itself to be impotent. The American public is impotent, or at least has no control over the actions of the current administration. The world is against the occupation and yet we're still there. What will it take?

And what does happen when the Iraqi government asks us to leave?

[Queso]

When does it all end?

Will ordinary Iraqis and American soldiers die daily for years to come? Congress has proven itself to be impotent. The American public is impotent, or at least has no control over the actions of the current administration. The world is against the occupation and yet we're still there. What will it take?
History suggests a revolution or civil war are the most likely outcomes when the system of government becomes so out of touch with a country's population.

And I'm not talking about Iraq.

[Black&Tan]

History suggests a revolution or civil war are the most likely outcomes when the system of government becomes so out of touch with a country's population.

And I'm not talking about Iraq.

Perhaps that is why the administration is building massive internment camps out West? But I doubt it will come to that. As a society, Americans are too apathetic to care about what government is really doing. Instead, they're more interested in Paris Hilton, American Idol, and cheap consumer goods.

[mactastic]

What will it take before Bush finally gets the message? Another Beirut style bomb killing hundreds of troops in one go?
It'll be a real shame if that comes to pass.

However, the idea that we are in Iraq for the long haul is the only way that Bush's actions make any sense.

Of course that would make liars out of all the administration types that spent so much time assuring us that six months was a way overblown time estimate of how long this whole thing would take...

[shu82]

Name one war we won where we don't still have bases in the country. Once we are in, we never leave. Think of the Philippines, we invaded that in the Spanish-American war over 100 years ago.

We will never completely leave Iraq or Afghanistan. We will eventually stop "occupying" it but we will still have bases. We have bases in almost every country in the world. Iraq will be no different.

[miloblithe]

Name one war we won where we don't still have bases in the country. Once we are in, we never leave. Think of the Philippines, we invaded that in the Spanish-American war over 100 years ago.

We will never completely leave Iraq or Afghanistan. We will eventually stop "occupying" it but we will still have bases. We have bases in almost every country in the world. Iraq will be no different.

Do we have any permanent bases in Mexico? (Other than those located in Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, etc.)

[mactastic]

It's not wars we've won that I'd be looking to for comparisons...

[Queso]

It's not wars we've won that I'd be looking to for comparisons...
My thought exactly. The jury's still out on this one.

[carbonmotion]

Name one war we won where we don't still have bases in the country. Once we are in, we never leave. Think of the Philippines, we invaded that in the Spanish-American war over 100 years ago.

We will never completely leave Iraq or Afghanistan. We will eventually stop "occupying" it but we will still have bases. We have bases in almost every country in the world. Iraq will be no different.

1. We leave when we are asked to leave, al la the Philippines. The US closed their bases there because we were asked to by the native government.

2. We are a global hegemon and our bases are essential for global stability

[shu82]

It's not wars we've won that I'd be looking to for comparisons...

The "war" was won in a few days. This is an occupation. You can't lose an occupation, you just leave when cost/benefit ratio turns <1. I don't see anyone protesting a war, I just see people who have decided the cost have outweighed the benefits. But I think the Philippines, is a good example on how long we will be there.

We will "leave" by stop patrolling the streets, but there will always be bases there. We will just stop leaving the bases except by air. Then the only way to get rid of those is direct military force.

We can't stop patrols right now, for fear of civil war. I never understood why things were set up the way they were after the "war" ended. You keep most of the people who ran the place keep running it. We ran out the Sunnis who had all the money and power, and turned the prison over to the inmates. We are kinda screwed right now. But we made our bed, and we have to sleep in it. No one bails us out of anything.

[miloblithe]

The "war" was won in a few days. This is an occupation. You can't lose an occupation, you just leave when cost/benefit ratio turns <1. I don't see anyone protesting a war, I just see people who have decided the cost have outweighed the benefits. But I think the Philippines, is a good example on how long we will be there.

Semantics. Call it whatever you want, we are currently in the bloodiest phase so far. Violence is escalating.

We will "leave" by stop patrolling the streets, but there will always be bases there. We will just stop leaving the bases except by air. Then the only way to get rid of those is direct military force.

Pretty easy to attack these bases with mortars and rockets if we don't patrol the streets.

...I never understood why things were set up the way they were after the "war" ended. You keep most of the people who ran the place keep running it. We ran out the Sunnis who had all the money and power, and turned the prison over to the inmates...

These statements seem contradictory, saying it's the same people on the one hand but lamenting that we drove out the Sunnis (and replaced them with Shiites) on the other. Who would you have preferred we install in power?

[mactastic]

The "war" was won in a few days. This is an occupation. You can't lose an occupation, you just leave when cost/benefit ratio turns <1. I don't see anyone protesting a war, I just see people who have decided the cost have outweighed the benefits. But I think the Philippines, is a good example on how long we will be there.

We will "leave" by stop patrolling the streets, but there will always be bases there. We will just stop leaving the bases except by air. Then the only way to get rid of those is direct military force.

We can't stop patrols right now, for fear of civil war. I never understood why things were set up the way they were after the "war" ended. You keep most of the people who ran the place keep running it. We ran out the Sunnis who had all the money and power, and turned the prison over to the inmates. We are kinda screwed right now. But we made our bed, and we have to sleep in it. No one bails us out of anything.
Funny thing is, I hear from conservatives all the time about how "Iraq is the central front in the GWOT" when calling it a war is to their advantage. Then the second you point out how crappy it's going they say "well the war was over in the first few days and we won".

BS. It's a war if US troops are dying at the rates we're seeing each month.

[skunk]

2. We are a global hegemon and our bases are essential for global stabilityCompletely untested hypothesis. Probably bollocks. Your bases are where they are to enforce your political and economic will.

[carbonmotion]

Completely untested hypothesis. Probably bollocks. Your bases are where they are to enforce your political and economic will.

What do you mean by untested? Don't the Japanese and Koreans want American military bases in Asian the hedge against PR China and save them money in an arms race? If the US left, won't the above mentioned countries will be forced to nuclearize and thereby making the entire region unstable?

[Black&Tan]

Funny thing is, I hear from conservatives all the time about how "Iraq is the central front in the GWOT" when calling it a war is to their advantage. Then the second you point out how crappy it's going they say "well the war was over in the first few days and we won".

BS. It's a war if US troops are dying at the rates we're seeing each month.

And if we're going to be there for 50 plus years for this "Grand War on Terror," and we're seeing casualty rates like we're seeing now, when does it end? When do the National Guard troops get to come home and when does our military stand down? Or are we going to cycle in and out of there in 18 month intervals for the next 50 years. Because I don't see the violence dying down...its getting worse. It's a catch-22 – we're there until the violence dies down, but we're the cause of the violence to begin with!

[Queso]

What do you mean by untested? Don't the Japanese and Koreans want American military bases in Asian the hedge against PR China and save them money in an arms race? If the US left, won't the above mentioned countries will be forced to nuclearize and thereby making the entire region unstable?
Could you explain how the Chagos Islanders want the American military on their territory?

[carbonmotion]

And if we're going to be there for 50 plus years for this "Grand War on Terror," and we're seeing casualty rates like we're seeing now, when does it end? When do the National Guard troops get to come home and when does our military stand down? Or are we going to cycle in and out of there in 18 month intervals for the next 50 years. Because I don't see the violence dying down...its getting worse. It's a catch-22 – we're there until the violence dies down, but we're the cause of the violence to begin with!

The US military situation in iraq is akin to the hunter and the moose. So the hunter is taking a dump in the middle of a forest... he sees a moose. If he pulls his pants up and runs, he might not get gored by the moose but he messes himself. He chooses his pride, he gets gored by the moose.

[carbonmotion]

Could you explain how the Chagos Islanders want the American military on their territory?

Well if I'm a Chagos Islander, I wouldn't want to be kicked off my native island either!

[skunk]

The US military situation in iraq is akin to the hunter and the moose. So the hunter is taking a dump in the middle of a forest... he sees a moose. If he pulls his pants up and runs, he might not get gored by the moose but he messes himself. He chooses his pride, he gets gored by the moose.Is that meant to make things clearer? :confused:

[zimv20]

Is that meant to make things clearer? :confused:

perhaps we're supposed to read something into the word gored.

[skunk]

perhaps we're supposed to read something into the word gored.No moose is good moose.

[shu82]

How about a wacupation? :D

Mactastic, you are my favorite liberal to chat with about Iraq!

I am not diluted enough to call what we are doing a war. I do enjoy propaganda like the term GWOT, but at least I can see it as just that. Any death is too high of a price for some. That is why we are working really hard to improve the odds for the warfighter. It is still really nasty business, and anything the government does takes too long. Right now we just don't have a choice in the situation. If we leave too soon many more will die in the war that will follow. Personally I would cut the place up like Yugoslavia, but the oil rich south would basically be given to Iran. I think that would be a good trade.

It is good to see people on both sides working together to make this as clean as possible. Nixon really screwed up while pulling out of Vietnam, he backed the wrong locals and didn't develop the defense capacity of the south well enough. We don't want the failure of that withdrawal to happen again. It needs to be slow and almost unnoticeable by the Iraqis. To the point where there are still troops on the street, but the faces change. We should never let them feel abandoned like we did the Vietnamese.

BTW, I don't consider myself anything, but reading my own posts I do speak on the republican/conservative side of things. Its a side effect of being a cog in the military-industrio machine.

[zimv20]

I am not diluted enough to call what we are doing a war.

perhaps another jump into the kool-aid tank will do it? :-)

[skunk]

Any death is too high of a price for some. That is why we are working really hard to improve the odds for the warfighter.Getting out is the only solution.Right now we just don't have a choice in the situation. If we leave too soon many more will die in the war that will follow.That will happen anyway. This will not be "clean", "unnoticeable" or anything but a "failure".

[shu82]

These statements seem contradictory, saying it's the same people on the one hand but lamenting that we drove out the Sunnis (and replaced them with Shiites) on the other. Who would you have preferred we install in power?

It is kind of like when poor people win the lottery. It usually ruins their lives. Since the Sunnis were the most powerful, they were also the most educated, and they knew how to run things. The middle and upper class of Iraq have left. When we won WWII we didn't take all the farmers and put them into high positions of power in government. We got rid of the higher ups in the Nazi Party, and left the rest of the system alone.

[skunk]

When we won WWIITell that to the Russians.

[shu82]

Getting out is the only solution.That will happen anyway. This will not be "clean", "unnoticeable" or anything but a "failure".

I can't believe you see it as hopeless. You really hate our country enough to want it to fail?, and have no respect or hope for the people of Iraq? That is really sad, I hope you are Canadian. I hate it when Americans want their own country to fail.

Also, if it won't be clean why do it. I would rather lose 100 soldiers a month for the rest of my life to avoid that outcome.

[biturbomunkie]

Perhaps that is why the administration is building massive internment camps out West?

interesting. link?

[mactastic]

I can't believe you see it as hopeless. You really hate our country enough to want it to fail?, and have no respect or hope for the people of Iraq? That is really sad, I hope you are Canadian. I hate it when Americans want their own country to fail.

Also, if it won't be clean why do it. I would rather lose 100 soldiers a month for the rest of my life to avoid that outcome.
Skunk's not American. And being realistic enough to see something as hopeless does not automatically translate into wanting this to fail and / or no respect for the people of Iraq.

I'm surprised you didn't lay the "you don't support the troops" or "you're unpatriotic" on us.

[skunk]

I can't believe you see it as hopeless. You really hate our country enough to want it to fail?On the contrary, I hope for your country's sake that such misguided and criminal enterprises are seen to be no longer acceptable, and that your abysmal Administration gets hit by the door as it leaves. The people of Iraq will work things out their own way, as they should have been allowed to do all along.
Also, if it won't be clean why do it. I would rather lose 100 soldiers a month for the rest of my life to avoid that outcome.There isn't always a painless way to leave: would you really sacrifice 1,200 US lives in addition to countless civilians just to salvage your foolish pride? Take it out on George Bush and Dick Cheney, not on the poor cannon-fodder in the field.

[Ugg]

Personally I would cut the place up like Yugoslavia, but the oil rich south would basically be given to Iran. I think that would be a good trade.



Yugoslavia was not "cut" up. The Yugoslav constitution allowed the individual states to secede. So, they did. The delusions of the Serbs in desiring a Greater Serbia is what led to war.

Self-determination is extremely important and the Iraqis need to decide for themselves which nation they want to be a part of. If the Shia decide they're better off as a part of Iran, who are we to deny them that right? So, I'll agree with you, if the Shia want to join up with Iran, it would be a good thing.

[skunk]

The delusions of the Serbs in desiring a Greater Serbia is what led to war.Or possibly the Germans jumping the gun and recognising the emerging constituents before they were viable entities, and thus destabilising the entire country...

[Ugg]

Or possibly the Germans jumping the gun and recognising the emerging constituents before they were viable entities, and thus destabilising the entire country...

Hmmm, it seems to me that the rabid nationalistic sentiment that Milosevic kept at a boil after the 600th Anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo had more to do with it than did Germany. Plus, Serbia was a poor brother to Slovenia, Croatia and even Bosnia. The economic loss that Serbia would suffer was, as usual, what it was really about.

[shu82]

Ok you are not American so you can hate America all you want. I really hate self-hating Americans.

It isn't about saving pride it more mathematical. The job we are doing over there is more police work. Killing Americans is more of a sport than a job for them. I am just sad that people have lost all hope that something good could come out of our presence, or that we could leave that country in a better state than when we toppled the government.

Back to the original debate, I do know that we will have a permanent base of operations there, the question is when will we stop policing the whole country.

Mactastic, you know I am smarter that to start pulling that "patiotic stuff" here.

[skunk]

Ok you are not American so you can hate America all you want. I really hate self-hating Americans.Surely Americans, too, are at liberty to hate their government and its policies?

The job we are doing over there is more police work. Killing Americans is more of a sport than a job for them.You have no idea. Since when did "police work" involve showering civilians with napalm and white phosphorus, or using USAF bombers over populated cities, or using C-130 gunships? Did they do that in Watts? I must have missed it. Killing Americans is a legitimate expression of their dislike of being occupied, trampled upon and disenfranchised, and having half a million of their compatriots killed in the name of liberation.
I am just sad that people have lost all hope that something good could come out of our presence, or that we could leave that country in a better state than when we toppled the government.The country is in an incalculably worse state than it was under Saddam Hussein, even after ten years of sanctions and the intense bombing of GW1 had wrecked their infrastructure.

[mactastic]

Mactastic, you know I am smarter that to start pulling that "patiotic stuff" here.
You tread pretty close to that line when you assert that because my honest assessment is that we've lost and it's time to get out that I wanted America to fail from the beginning.

[skunk]

You tread pretty close to that line when you assert that because my honest assessment is that we've lost and it's time to get out that I wanted America to fail from the beginning.I certainly did. The Criminal Coalition deserved to fail. Any perceived success only serves to encourage a repeat performance. Iran, Syria? Where next?

[mactastic]

I certainly did. The Criminal Coalition deserved to fail. Any perceived success only serves to encourage a repeat performance. Iran, Syria? Where next?
Oh the neocons are never discouraged. As we've seen, even today we get people in here arguing that we actually won the Dubya Dubya II, it's just the occupation that's 'problematic'.

The same crew is already trumpeting our smashing success in Iraq and encouraging a repeat performance in Iran, Syria, and any other nation that dares to stand in our way.

There's no discouraging them.

I was actually hoping my assessment was wrong. That was not to be the case; however.

[Black&Tan]

interesting. link?

This is what I could find on a quick Google search. And its Halliburton (or a subsidiary of) building the prison camps...

http://www.alternet.org/rights/42458/

[leekohler]

I can't believe you see it as hopeless. You really hate our country enough to want it to fail?, and have no respect or hope for the people of Iraq? That is really sad, I hope you are Canadian. I hate it when Americans want their own country to fail.

Also, if it won't be clean why do it. I would rather lose 100 soldiers a month for the rest of my life to avoid that outcome.

100 soldiers a month? You're talking about my friends and family- put in harms way for your and Bush's pride because neither of you seem to know when it's time to stop. We got rid of Saddam, we should have left shortly after and let the Iraqis have their country.

Let me tell you something else, nobody here hates the US- but a ton of people hate this administration and the mockery it's made of our country and constitution. You wanna get mad at people? Get mad at Bush and his cronies for getting us into this unnecessary mess in the first place, while letting Al Qaeda and bin Laden run free. Bush is wasting money, lives and resources on something he'll never win, unless he manages kill every Iraqi left. We could have had bin Laden by now and worked together with the world to fight terrorism. Instead, we decided to go it alone and destroy a country that had nothing to with 9/11, and manage to alienate almost every ally we have. We need to get out of Iraq, try to repair the damage this administration has done to this country's good name and focus on bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Iraq is Bush's ego trip at this point.

[skunk]

We got rid of Saddam, we should have left shortly after and let the Iraqis have their country.We should nerver have got rid of Saddam. It was none of our business.

[Queso]

We should nerver have got rid of Saddam. It was none of our business.
Even better, we should never have created Saddam in the first place.

It comes down to one basic point. Stop making messes now and in twenty years time we won't have to clear them up. No more Western funding for "freedom fighters" and "revolutionary leaders" that later turn into enemies. The arms trade has too much power over global relations. Time to break the cycle.

[leekohler]

We should nerver have got rid of Saddam. It was none of our business.

You're right- I never agreed with this idiotic war to begin with. However, now it's beyond idiotic.

[shu82]

We should never have got rid of Saddam. It was none of our business.

I agree, we have always been better when dealing with dictators(Pakistan). Also, I am not saying that we should sacrifice our soldiers to save face, I just don't want to leave and have a holicaust happen, of which we were the root cause. There is so much passion in this issue, and truely there are no sides anymore. It is just a debate on how an when we should finish this.

[Ugg]

I agree, we have always been better when dealing with dictators(Pakistan). Also, I am not saying that we should sacrifice our soldiers to save face, I just don't want to leave and have a holicaust happen, of which we were the root cause. There is so much passion in this issue, and truely there are no sides anymore. It is just a debate on how an when we should finish this.

Your holocaust analogy isn't apt. Civil war is the correct term.

Finish what? A war without a foreseeable end?

[SMM]

I can't believe you see it as hopeless. You really hate our country enough to want it to fail?, and have no respect or hope for the people of Iraq? That is really sad, I hope you are Canadian. I hate it when Americans want their own country to fail.

Also, if it won't be clean why do it. I would rather lose 100 soldiers a month for the rest of my life to avoid that outcome.

I do not want to be one of the 100 people who have to die for you to feel better. Your are a selfish, arrogant POS to suggest this. Your understanding of war is on par with an ameba doing trigonometry.

[leekohler]

I agree, we have always been better when dealing with dictators(Pakistan). Also, I am not saying that we should sacrifice our soldiers to save face, I just don't want to leave and have a holicaust happen, of which we were the root cause. There is so much passion in this issue, and truely there are no sides anymore. It is just a debate on how an when we should finish this.

You DID say we should sacrifice our soldiers to save face. You said you'd rather see 100 soldiers die a month rather than lose. Guess what? We lost- and more soldiers continue to die for Bush's ego. So should we just continue losing?

There should be no debate at all. The time is now for us to leave. One friend of mine who just got back (a twenty year veteran by the way) said that not one more American life should be wasted in Iraq, because they don't want us there. They want to solve their own problems. It's their country after all.

[biturbomunkie]

I can't believe you see it as hopeless. You really hate our country enough to want it to fail?

to fail? you can't fail something that's already failed.

,and have no respect or hope for the people of Iraq? That is really sad, I hope you are Canadian. I hate it when Americans want their own country to fail.

Also, if it won't be clean why do it. I would rather lose 100 soldiers a month for the rest of my life to avoid that outcome.

you have respect for the Iraqis but none for our own countrymen's lives? what a patriotic american (as we can tell from your writing skills ;))!

[FFTT]

I think we are there to insure that nothing stops the flow of oil to the U.S. and Europe.

We are also there to protect Israel. It's just too obvious, but the oil is still more important to our way of life even if we were to sacrifice Israel.

We are also there to support the Saudi Monarchy again because any instability in their rule, threatens the flow of oil.

I'm also pretty sure that eventually we will enforce a regime change in Iran
to benefit our own interests.

I have the sneaking suspicion that Bush will attempt to involve us in a conflict with Iran forcing this Democratic Congress to re-instate the draft.

These Neocons are thinking in terms of decades and they will do all it takes
to insure a long and healthy gravy train for the military industrial empire and BIG OIL.

That's the way I see it, unless we remove them from power.

[solvs]

1. We leave when we are asked to leave
We have been asked to leave.

That is why we are working really hard to improve the odds for the warfighter.
You mean like how we don't give them the resources they need, like body and vehicle armor?

You really hate our country enough to want it to fail?
No, we love the country enough to be angry at those who put us into a losing situation.

I hate it when Americans want their own country to fail.
I hate it when people are too oblivious to know we've already failed, or when they know they have nothing else, so they have to attack the rest of us for stating the obvious.

I would rather lose 100 soldiers a month for the rest of my life to avoid that outcome.
How noble of you. Proof that you don't support the troops, you support the war. And apparently your party over the country. If you cared about this country, you'd recognize the mistakes we've made and want us to correct them, not continue down the same path.

Ok you are not American so you can hate America all you want. I really hate self-hating Americans.
And I still hate oblivious partisans. I also hate Americans who can't tell the difference between the gov and their country. I love this country, which is why I hate this gov because they're screwing everything up. Anyone who was paying attention could see that. And they'd be pissed, as well they should be.

you know I am smarter that to start pulling that "patiotic stuff" here.
Apparently, you aren't.

9/11.

[hulugu]

How noble of you. Proof that you don't support the troops, you support the war....

This is an interesting distinction. The hawks really don't support the troops, they're seen as bodies to fulfill an objective, thus giving them the right body armor, night-vision goggles, and armored HUMMVEEs isn't necessary. Furthermore, put into this perspective it becomes possible that the 'peace' was lost intentionally so as to create an internicine war. With the right conflict the fighters who would have been tapped to attack the west are now involved and sometimes pitted against each other. Of course, this conflict will ultimately resolve itself leaving a bitter population who are now well schooled in urban comabt and insurgent warfare, but that's the next guy's problem.

I'm going to go hide under a blanket now.

[FFTT]

Most of us here understand that our soldiers are being used as expendable pawns in an attempt to secure the interests of Big Oil and military industrial
corporations.

If this president and his cronies had one shred of decency, they would be doing everything it took to bring our troops home after their first visit to Walter Reed.

If you believe that Bin Laden was entirely responsible for the events of 9/11, then why was he allowed to escape?
The entire world was with us supporting his capture by any means necessary, but that wasn't this administration's goal apparently.

Now we face hundreds of thousands of Al Qaeda sympathizers who are motivated by our own imperialistic exploits and emboldened by our
shameful treatment of detainees.

Before all of this started, an American family was reasonably safe to
travel almost anywhere on the globe.

In general terms, we as individuals were welcome most places.

Now the world sees us differently.

We not only allowed these criminals to steal an election, but then we
supposedly voted to keep these vermin in power the second time around.

So in a world view, we as Americans supported this madness and now we
are not safe to travel. We have also virtually insured decades of reprisals
against our citizens from an entire generation of people affected by our
actions in the Middle East.

Thus we have created the perpetual enemy which plays perfectly into the
hands of the very people who benefit from this conflict.

3500 soldiers have lost their lives and 30,000 have serious injuries, not to mention another 1000 or so private contractors and another 10,000 injuries
that are not included in the "official tally"

All of this because of a small handful of international criminals were allowed to carry out there plan.

When you look at the outcome and the financial motives, it's impossible
for me to believe that they didn't have some help from the inside.

As far as I'm concerned, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove and
every founding member of PNAC belong in prison.

[Black&Tan]

One fact which I'm sure all of us here know, but bears repeating, because nobody consciously remembers it. We went into Iraq under the guise of imminent threat and WMD. What are WMD? Nuclear, biological and chemical agents. Who supplied them to Saddam? WE DID! Yet we turned a blind eye when he used them on his countrymen. Now, we hold him accountable for having them and using them almost 10 years later. What about the US? Don't we have some measure of accountability? And doesn't the US have massive stockpiles of the same weapons? For that matter, so does Russia.

There's a tremendous double standard here. We pre-emptively invade Iraq because we "think" they're threatening us. What are we doing to Iran, Syria, and North Korea? We're overtly threatening them, yet that's okay? Might makes right?

If you go by Bush's logic, when will the US be invaded and by whom? Are we an imminent threat?

[Queso]

Are we an imminent threat?
Under the current administration most definitely. Ironically by going round the world threatening everybody they don't like, the Bush administration is making WMD proliferation far more likely. The message being sent from the White House is clearly that the only way a country can properly protect its independence is to be capable of wiping out its US-allied neighbours. Protection by threatening mutual destruction. Horrifying, but it works.

Of course I'm actually quite sure the Neocons know this, but it's good for both business and being able to control the American people so to them it's all good.

[Desertrat]

B&T, I'll repeat what I said some four years back, when I first came on board here:

I think the expectation was that after Saddam was overthrown, an Iraqi government could be formed that was friendly to us. We could then build a large base(s) in the more western part of the country for the "projection of power" in the Middle East, and not have the fleet steaming around inside the deadly trap that is the Persian Gulf. Such a base would reduce the cost of projecting power.

It's a national-interest thing about maintaining some sort of stability in the are of the world's most important oil production.

Sorta looks like a continuation in style of the "containment" policy of the Cold War with the USSR, insofar as the thinking of the US leadership and of the Pentagon.

Bases in Iraq would increase our influence on Syria (think "Lebanon") as well as control Iraq, and ease protection of pipelines from the underbelly of Russia. Similarly in Afghanistan, I guess, which would add to influence over Iran's actions. Maybe scare Iran into cessation of arming Hezbollah.

Anyhow, that's what I see as the "why" of a lot of what's going on. No guarantees about this psychology, though. :D

'Rat

[leekohler]

B&T, I'll repeat what I said some four years back, when I first came on board here:

I think the expectation was that after Saddam was overthrown, an Iraqi government could be formed that was friendly to us. We could then build a large base(s) in the more western part of the country for the "projection of power" in the Middle East, and not have the fleet steaming around inside the deadly trap that is the Persian Gulf. Such a base would reduce the cost of projecting power.

It's a national-interest thing about maintaining some sort of stability in the are of the world's most important oil production.

Sorta looks like a continuation in style of the "containment" policy of the Cold War with the USSR, insofar as the thinking of the US leadership and of the Pentagon.

Bases in Iraq would increase our influence on Syria (think "Lebanon") as well as control Iraq, and ease protection of pipelines from the underbelly of Russia. Similarly in Afghanistan, I guess, which would add to influence over Iran's actions. Maybe scare Iran into cessation of arming Hezbollah.

Anyhow, that's what I see as the "why" of a lot of what's going on. No guarantees about this psychology, though. :D

'Rat

And as you can see- it's not going very well. We need to get out of there and start exploring new energy sources.

[Queso]

Sadly 'Rat, what you forget is that all those aims only bolster US interests, not Iraq's. So why should the Iraqis support them? Why would people from a country that is traditionally opposed to the USA suddenly agree to becoming a US vassal state? To anyone who doesn't subscribe to the idea that the USA is universally admired the whole thing sounded like a daydream from the beginning, and only someone so blinkered by their personal ideology (i.e. Dick Cheney) could have expected success.

That's why I get so angry about it to be honest. The whole thing could have been avoided if only someone had used their brains and had a good hard think about the likely outcome rather than just concentrating on the task.

[skunk]

The whole thing could have been avoided if only someone had used their brains and had a good hard think about the likely outcome rather than just concentrating on the task.Sadly, they didn't even concentrate on the task.

[hulugu]

Of course this assumes that a US presence in Iraq would be as well-accepted as our bases in Saudi Arabia....oh wait...like the Phillipeans....ummm....Japan?...oh I've got one, like South Korea. The reality is the presence of US bases is a sore point among our allies in many cases, the idea that supplanting US bases in the middle of Iraq after a major invasion as a way to combat rising Iranian power and Al Qaeda simply ignores the reality of the situation on the ground or any historical context.

[skunk]

the idea that planting US bases in the middle of Iraq after a major invasion as a way to combat rising Iranian power and Al Qaeda simply ignores the reality of the situation on the ground or any historical context....making it even more attractive to the average Swarmlord neo-conservative imperialist.

[Swarmlord]

...making it even more attractive to the average Swarmlord neo-conservative imperialist.

So, are we all willing to get behind drilling in ANWR and off the coast of California now or what? According to the arguments presented here, it's a win/win for everyone!

[Queso]

So, are we all willing to get behind drilling in ANWR and off the coast of California now or what? According to the arguments presented here, it's a win/win for everyone!
No, the win/win for everyone is to accept the people with the oil as equals in a deal. That's currently pretty much the only way they have of generating serious income, so of course they want us to buy it.

What they don't want is us walking in and taking it, then throwing them a few pennies like millionaires giving charity to beggars. And if that means we need to smarten our act up to use less of the stuff, then so be it.

[leekohler]

No, the win/win for everyone is to accept the people with the oil as equals in a deal. That's currently pretty much the only way they have of generating serious income, so of course they want us to buy it.

What they don't want is us walking in and taking it, then throwing them a few pennies like millionaires giving charity to beggars. And if that means we need to smarten our act up to use less of the stuff, then so be it.

Bingo! Smartest post here all day.

[Swarmlord]

No, the win/win for everyone is to accept the people with the oil as equals in a deal. That's currently pretty much the only way they have of generating serious income, so of course they want us to buy it.

What they don't want is us walking in and taking it, then throwing them a few pennies like millionaires giving charity to beggars. And if that means we need to smarten our act up to use less of the stuff, then so be it.

Pennies? Perhaps you haven't checked on the price of crude per barrel lately. What do you want us to pay for oil? $80? $100? $600 a barrel? Remember that we and the Brits developed their technology for obtaining and refining it in the first place. You think that Arabs just woke up some day and figured out how to scoop this stuff into containers and turn it into something useable?

[Queso]

Pennies? Perhaps you haven't checked on the price of crude per barrel lately. What do you want us to pay for oil? $80? $100? $600 a barrel?
Carry on the way our governments are going and it'll be $500/barrel before too long. And how much of the current oil price goes to the people of these countries? For example Saudi Arabia, where all the profit goes first to those the West have bought before circling back to our own arms companies in deals where the already rich in Saudi get even richer in kickbacks?

Remember that we and the Brits developed their technology for obtaining and refining it in the first place. You think that Arabs just woke up some day and figured out how to scoop this stuff into containers and turn it into something useable?
The Brits also kick-started the Industrial Revolution, but that doesn't mean we're the only ones allowed to profit from factories. Time moves on. The US/UK oil companies that first drilled for Middle Eastern oil have made billions ever since, more money than was ever put in to develop the fields in the first place. We have no automatic right to oil pulled out of the ground today because of what happened in the past.

[Ugg]

Remember that we and the Brits developed their technology for obtaining and refining it in the first place. You think that Arabs just woke up some day and figured out how to scoop this stuff into containers and turn it into something useable?


So the swiss deserve to tax the internet, right? The chinese of course should get royalties on every sheet of paper produced and the germans should be able to tax every interstate system in the world by your illogical conclusion. Get a grip and stop blaming the ME for all of your problems.

[skunk]

So the swiss deserve to tax the internet, right? The chinese of course should get royalties on every sheet of paper produced and the germans should be able to tax every interstate system in the world by your illogical conclusion.We should all be paying royalties to the Iranians whenever we mention Human Rights, too. Wasn't it Cyrus who created the first international declaration of human rights?

[Desertrat]

dynamicv, I haven't forgetten a danged thing. Re-read my post: I was second-guessing the "why" of what's been going on. Motivations, rationale, etc.

And explain, please: "What they don't want is us walking in and taking it..."

Aren't U.S. companies paying the world price for the various grades of crude? Aren't they paying the same prices as Japan or China? The same as anyone else? And, what's this "we" stuff? Have you looked at all at the home countries of the major oil companies? Royal Dutch Shell? British Petroleum? Elf-Total is, I believe, French.

All our lives depend on oil. No oil, a bunch of folks die. Dead. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal or a conservative, rich or poor, a Greenie or a Spoiler. Dead. Sayonara. No "Farewell" because that means, "Until we meet again."--and we surely won't meet again.

But we have NIMBYed and legislated ourselves out of the awl bidness, pretty much, in this country, and we bad-mouth the people who are keeping us alive. Same for the natural gas business, for that matter. And thrown impediments in the way of nuclear power.

As a society, we ain't real bright.

'Rat

[hulugu]

Pennies? Perhaps you haven't checked on the price of crude per barrel lately. What do you want us to pay for oil? $80? $100? $600 a barrel? Remember that we and the Brits developed their technology for obtaining and refining it in the first place. You think that Arabs just woke up some day and figured out how to scoop this stuff into containers and turn it into something useable?

Of course it helped they worked on that whole Al-gebra thing back in the day. ;)

[hulugu]

All our lives depend on oil. No oil, a bunch of folks die. Dead. It doesn't matter if you're a liberal or a conservative, rich or poor, a Greenie or a Spoiler...

But we have NIMBYed and legislated ourselves out of the awl bidness, pretty much, in this country, and we bad-mouth the people who are keeping us alive. Same for the natural gas business, for that matter. And thrown impediments in the way of nuclear power.

As a society, we ain't real bright.

'Rat

The awl bidness ain't gonna fix this fix we're in.

Digging around in Yellowstone and ANWAR (correct me if my assumption is incorrect) is just going to delay this inevitability for a greater cost. It's time to stop diggin for dinosaur carcass and time to capture the energy that pounds down on us every day.

[Queso]

<stuff &>...As a society, we ain't real bright.

'Rat
On that point I totally agree. I've always said a human is normally quite bright, but humans in a group are idiots.

The "we" was a blanket statement for all the developed economies really. Even though we know that oil is becoming a scarce resource we are increasing our dependency on it. It's utter madness, hence my comments about "the way our Governments are going". There simply hasn't been the effort put in to reduce energy consumption. I'd also much rather we go headlong into the nuclear option to reduce our oil requirement further, where at least the country of supply (Australia mostly) is not bogged down in an unstable political region caused by a post-Colonial carve up.

As for the market price paid for oil, it's control of the resource I was talking about, not the price. If Iraq (for example) has no choice in who they sell it to, who profits from pulling it out of the wells, nor control of how that process is managed they don't actually own what should be their most valuable resource. And when the proceeds for that oil are due to be taken to pay for the invasion that resulted in them losing that control (as in Iraq's case), I really don't see how anyone could have expected them to be happy about it.

In a way it's a similar story in Saudi or Kuwait. The Al-Sauds and Al-Sabahs were appointed as rulers by the British, not the people of those countries, and when a Middle Eastern country does choose a government of its own it's shunned and actively undermined by the West. Now you're probably going to argue that's their fault for choosing extremist governments, but we're quite willing to deal with extremists when they look after our interests so I don't think that point on its own holds much water. I'll also argue that our creating of elites within the countries helps the extremists gain popular support.

The whole thing amounts to treating the people of the Middle East like children who need to be controlled rather than people who have rights. And then we wonder why they're angry?

[Desertrat]

I don't see where Iraq "has no choice". They already have a contract with the Chinese, for 50,000 bbl/day.

And if they're getting the world price, what difference does it make if there's a "brother in law" agreement?

Given what's going on with "alternative power", I operate on the assumption that we're in a transition period, moving away from dependency on oil and natural gas. If that's the case, and it sure seems to be, the operative phrase is "transition period".

It's best if any transition period can avoid being a chaotic time. Further development in the U.S. of now-verboten drilling areas would--IMO--smooth things out insofar as pricing of crude oil and the retail price of gasoline. I'm thinking here of the overall effects on our economy.

To me, the rational thing to do would be to persuade folks to get into personal transport of the 35-40 mpg category, even BEFORE gasoline gets to $5 or $6 a gallon. The 1970s, however, tell us differently. And I see no real effort on the part of either party's leaders to bring this about.

"Big Oil" is ahead of Congress in their thinking about alternative energy generation, per a newsletter from Agora Publishing:

"So how does the energy throne of Big Oil respond to the emerging alternative energy oligarchy? By joining the family, of course. British petroleum has purchased both Greenlight Energy and Orion Energy, while also forming a strategic alliance with Clipper Windpower. All three of these companies operate in the wind power industry. With two farms in the Netherlands and five projects at various stages of development in the U.S. this year, BP's land bank of development projects now has the potential to generate some 15,000 MW of power.

Similarly, Royal Dutch Shell has used its offshore oil and gas expertise to establish a formidable presence in the wind market. Their Egmond aan Zee Offshore Wind Farm in the North Sea supplies some hundred thousand homes in the Netherlands with electricity, eliminating an estimated 140K tones of CO2 emissions a year.

There is little doubt that Big Oil will reign king for a while to come. With their support, so will the alternatives."

Transition period...

'Rat