Permanent US Presence in Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Mar 30, 2006.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4834032.stm

    I wonder whether the Iraqis were even consulted. So much for "sovereignty".
     
  2. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #2
    To date, almost every single prediction I (and many other in this forum) made three years ago has been realised.

    One of mine was a permanent military presence to protect the US "investment" (i.e. the cost of the war being recouped by the plethora no-tender contracts). This was denied at the time by BushCo. Enough said!

    As skunk says, what sovereignty?
     
  3. iPhil macrumors 68040

    iPhil

    #3


    Like the DraftDodger that Bush is .. He'll get us in a quagmire and let others deal with mess that He started .. It seems like Iraq will be dmz in Korea .. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    Hey Skunk, maybe we have it all wrong...

    Perhaps instead of these being huge permanent bases, the US has decided that it would be easier to just build new cities/towns for Iraqis to live in than to pacify/rebuild the existing ones. Defending these new towns from bad elements will also be easy - since each town comes with heavily fortified walls and machine-gun nests.

    Brilliant.
     
  5. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #5
    AKA, prisons?
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    gated communities.
     
  7. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #7
    Tomato...

    Potato...


























    ...Let's call the whole thing off.
     
  8. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #8
    Yeah, I thought I was being facetious when I said we're never leaving. I figured this would be screwed up, but this is even worse than most of those who were talking doom and gloom thought it would be. I kinda thought most of these types just needed to take off the tin foil hats, but it turns out they didn't know the half of just how bad things were going to get. And keep getting worse.

    If we're still there in '08, the Dems will have no problem winning the Presidency. And probably Congress if they haven't already by '06. What do you want to bet people still complain, even if the Dem in question actually fixes the situation.
     
  9. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #9
    Of course people will complain. The economic boom was all due to Reagan and Bush if I can remember the Republican line at the time and Clinton was putting us on the road to ruin.

    If the Dems win in '08 and manage to pull us out of Iraq the Republican spin machine will start touting it as an inevitable result of W's brilliant planning, if the Dems don't get us out it'll be because they ruined W's brilliant planning. It's almost perfect for a one term lapse in Republican control. If the Dems come in and clean things up too quickly (which I don't think is possible due to the scope of the mess) it will look like Bush's plan was working. If they take too long with getting things back on track they won't be making enough progress. Of course the average attention span of the general public will not help things either when it comes time for 2010 and 2012.... what were we talking about again? :)
     
  10. iDM macrumors 6502a

    iDM

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    The Commonwealth of PA/The First State-DE
    #10
    Its sad but true.....I don't think the Democrats will win in '08. I think the republicans can continue to force bible banging conservative americans to reenergize there "belief and moral system"('08 Republican slogan anyone?) and make Americans think voting Democratic is un-American all over again. Now I don't mean to turn this into a Hillary thing and I will not taint this post with my thoughts on whether I like her or not, but I don't think that she will win and I think she'd be a bad choice as the Democratic candidate. The Republicans will have a field day polarizing the public and making her look like a mad-woman.

    I am not holding my breath for a Democrat to take office in '08. As someone stated above me if they do it surely won't last long, before another Republican candidate comes along and forces Americans to thinking Republican is the only patriotic way all over again. Dubbaa had no problem pushing Kerry as soft. Not to mention Kerry wasn't strong on certain issues that may have brought some of the on the fence conservatives his way. I think a candidate bringing to light the truthfulness that is Bush and Co.'s sincere vendetta against all things natural and in the environment it could only help but for some reason Kerry completely dropped the ball on that one. Most likely because he was afraid it was going to "hurt some neo-con clear-cut owners, or some fat white rich republicans who own all of our oil rigs" and figured it would be better to just let that one slide under the table. For the vast majority of people a candidate that says he is going to clean their air, clean their water, and protect their parks could only win him votes. Yes you may lose a couple racist or mormon ranchers in the south and the mid-west who don't want the gov. interfering with their property but who cares? Let them inbred and continue to become less and less educated, natural selection will weed them out. (Unfortunately natural selection has yet to make it to Texas/Wyoming/Idaho but soon enough.)

    All a conservative candidate has to do during these elections is sit back see how the Dems play it and than smear smear smear and it should be a cake walk to bring into power another puppet with a psycho puppet master like Cheney actually controlling the ship.
     
  11. iDM macrumors 6502a

    iDM

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    The Commonwealth of PA/The First State-DE
    #11
    I hope my post didn't kill the convo.........
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    I don't think the neocons are going to win in '08, let alone '06. It doesn't really matter what the Dems do or don't do, they can let themselves get attacked all they want. People are sick of the Reps and want someone else in there to replace them. It doesn't matter who. Now I don't think Hillary can win, but that's why I doubt she'll make it through the primaries. Even people who would vote for her know she can't win. Probably same with Frist. McCain might be the one to beat, but his recent kowtowing to the far right is only alienating him from the moderates and the left. The religious right are still going to vote for someone like Frist whether he'd win or not, as seen by the recent straw poll.

    So cheer up, soon we'll have a president who just doesn't do anything rather than one who does everything wrong. :D
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    If you look at a map of the area, a permanent presence in Iraq makes perfect sense in terms of force projection. The Navy could pull out of the Persian Gulf, and it would be possible to move our forces out of Saudi Arabia.

    This would most likely reduce costs (transferring to the use of land-based air instead of naval air), and would certainly reduce risks to the fleet.

    Yeah, it's all about oil. It will be, for another ten or twenty years, no matter what political party controls the US government. So, to me, the real issue is whether or not the US should make any effort to be able to project power into the middle east.

    Part of any great-power strategy of international chess has to involve projection of power; whether it's desirable or not is what's always being studied. We're in the middle east, for now. China is expanding its blue-water abilities into the South China Sea and the Straits in order to protect its own supplies of imported oil.

    And so it goes...

    'Rat
     
  14. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #14
    That's sort of a risky strategy given the lukewarm attitudes of the neighboring countries that control the airspace around Iraq. Turkey doesn't want to grant access because of the Kurds, Syria and Iran are all members of the infamous axis, Saudi Arabia is obviously not interested in our presence and Jordan would easily be pressured not to allow access. It wouldn't take much to block the Gulf if someone wanted to badly enough.

    Our long term presence in Iraq is putting the military on some pretty shaky ground. It all depends upon how we treat Iraq's neighbors and we know how that's been dealt with.
     
  15. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #15
    Well, maybe it does make sense, for the reasons you've mentioned (and others.

    Still, the issue should be whether the US (or anyone) can blithely set-up shop in a Sovereign Nation.

    Otherwise known as "the rules don't apply to us" and "I'm an arrogant prick" arguments.
     
  16. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #16
    True enough Iraq is centrally located in the world of oil, but it's difficult (or impossible) to project force when your base isn't secure. The Iranian leadership is pretty clear about what it thinks about the US ability to project any more force, and for that matter Russia and China are coming to the same conclusion. They're currently advancing their interests in the region (extending to Central Asia) by supporting proxy regimes (cheap) while we fight wars (expensive).

    Of course, supporting unstable regimes hasn't exactly proven to be a long-term strategy for success. Quite a chess game we've got going.
     
  17. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #17
    But I think that was kind of the point. We were trying to establish a base right in the middle of the area and launch future attacks against Iran, Syria, etc. That's the theory anyway. Didn't exactly work out that way, but they're still trying for some reason.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    Hmm... if it's so self-evident that we're interested in permanent strategic projection-of-power bases in Iraq, why does the president feel the need to lie to the public about it?
     
  19. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    Force of habit.
     
  20. iPhil macrumors 68040

    iPhil

    #20
    Soo True, skunk.. It's kinda hard to break the routine after do the samething for the past 6 yrs.. :eek: ;)
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    iphil, it goes way back beyond six years. Think "CIA and Mossadegh". The Shah of Iran was pro-West and was an ally during the Cold War. He was replaced by anti-west Ayatollah Khomeini. The balance-of-power game began to get serious.

    Hindsight being what it is, we'd probably have been better off to leave Saddam Hussein alone back in the Desert Shield/Storm era. When you start worrying about other peoples' freedom and democracy in an area with no real history of our freedoms, bad things can follow.

    This (bleep) doesn't happen in a vacuum, nor crop up overnight. Trends and forces take decades to develop.

    'Rat
     
  22. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    He and I were both referring to the lies, not the geopolitical shenanigans, 'Rat.
    We'd have been better off not setting him up for that one, I agree. Yet another appalling Bush cock-up, costing tens of thousands of lives. The sins of the father, eh?
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    there are a number of people, myself included, for which the above statement would be labeled foresight.
     
  24. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #24
    Even there, though, the deal predated Bush I. We already had our relationships with the Saudis and the Kuwaitis.

    What's not debated, publicly, is whether or not it's in our national interest to care about brutality in other countries. Thiink of Saddam's Iraq, or Milosevic in Serbia. Or all over Africa.

    (Bombing Serbia created a precedent for Iraq and Gulf War II. It also created a belief among politicians that sufficient airpower could obviate the need for a massive number of grunts on the gorund.)

    That is, should we merely work from the standpoint of, "You have something to sell; we'll buy. How you run your country is your business, not ours."? That's how China is dealing with Iran about oil, for instance.

    'Rat
     
  25. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    It can, and it did. The problem wasn't defeating Saddam's military, it was anticipating the aftermath and dealing with it. The problem was and is the occupation of the country.
     

Share This Page