Permanent Occupation?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Jun 5, 2008.

  1. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #1
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...lan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html
    Mind-boggling gall. In my day, we called this colonialism, but we were usually slightly more subtle. And slightly less ham-fisted.
     
  2. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #2
    I sure hope it ain't true. We need LESS of this s***, not more.

    When is he leaving office again? :rolleyes:
     
  3. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3
    As of this posting, 220 days, 20 hours, 3 minutes and 33 seconds

    Which is 220 days, 20 hours, 3 minutes and 33 seconds too many
     
  4. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #4
    I might have one of those bumper stickers that list that. :rolleyes:
     
  5. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #5
    Permanent? Probably not. The oil has to run out at some point and what's the use of being there then, eh?
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Perpetual war.
     
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    Y'know, sometimes I just wonder. Back when we first started talking, here, about the Iraq war, I commented that I could understand having a land base in Iraq, with a friendly government. A land base away from Baghdad would allow projection of force if need be, without the hazard of our fleet in the Gulf and the religious problems of our having troops in Saudi Arabia.

    But 50 bases? Control of airspace? Legal immunity? All that's way beyond rationality, seems to me.

    We didn't have legal immunity in foreign countries when I was in the Army, in the 1950s. We either went before a local legal system, or got court-martialed. All spelled out in the old "Status of Forces" agreements.

    A cooperative, friendly government can--and should--control its own airspace, from a legality standpoint, particularly with us as backup.

    Call me stoopid, but I don't see the rationale for 50 bases. Maybe one or two west of Baghdad, I dunno. Possibly one down near the border junction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia with Iraq.

    What's reported in the OP article smacks more of an occupation than any normal politico/military agreement such as we had with many countries during the Cold War.
     
  8. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    The Project for a New American Century is taking shape nicely.
     
  9. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #9
    What is the point? Why is he doing this?

    For a moment, forget the fact that he even waged this war in the first place.

    It's one thing to "stay the course" now, while he is in power. Why is he so hell bent on keeping all of us there, long after that pesky 'ol constitutional law forces him out?

    Another question. Could a sitting POTUS renege on any deal made with a foreign state?
     
  10. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    50 bases... immunity... it's astounding but I really can't say I'm all that surprised.


    Lethal
     
  11. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #11
    It means the end of the (very tenuous ) legitimacy of the present government of Iraq the second any member signs this.
     
  12. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    I must have missed the bit where it was legitimised. :confused:
     
  13. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #13
    Mike, we've been the world's beat cop since 1945. The UN has been pretty much ineffectual. So, the whole idea among all major powers has been to play the international chess game that Rudyard Kipling called "The Great Game" in hiis novel, "Kim". Nothing has changed.

    We've hung around the middle east--as well as elsewhere--with what's called "force projection" for all these years. Some major bases in Iraq would enable the continuance of this projection, but with less risk to our troops and a lower cost to the taxpayer.

    If we don't do it, sooner or later some other nation will. Other governments have less interest in your well being than does ours.
     
  14. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #14
    Of course your right,when I venture in to PRSI these days I feel there's a different language being used in here and in my stumbling way I'm trying to understand it.In my attempt to be slightly less confrontational of ideas expressed I may sometimes say things I know for sure are complete ********.:)
     
  15. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    What is it like in other parts of the world where permit bases are established. What rules legally do they have?

    I know the US still has bases all over the world from wars long since ended. (Germany and Japan to name 2 of them)
     
  16. skunk thread starter macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    What makes you think that your government is serving your interests? Do you have significant holdings in oil or defence?
     
  17. Virgil-TB2 macrumors 65816

    Virgil-TB2

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #17
    I think Obama could easily overturn this agreement when he moves into the Oval Office. This kind of occupation is exactly what the old Soviet Union used to do (and every empire back to the beginning of civilisation), but it does violate International Law, as did the invasion and the current occupation.

    US governments and citizens have always had a great disdain for International Law, but it's still ... well, the law.

    Obama could simply be the first US President to say:

    "Hey, let's play equally with the other countries and obey all international laws, treaties and agreements. As part of that, I hereby abrogate or extinguish all US treaties that violate said law." Even saying that the USA would (finally!) agree to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (now over 60 years old and still not recognised by the US!), would mean that they would *have* to leave and give the country back to the Iraqis.

    He would probably get a lot of opposition on the home front, but it's certainly do-able.

    .
     
  18. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #18
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    skunk, I take it for granted that the US Government cares more about my well-being than does the government of any other country. Simple as that.

    If for example we left, completely, and a country such as Russia replaced us as an umbrella of force over that area, do you think their policies would include your well-being as equal to that of the Russian people?

    One of the major powers will provide such an umbrella of force over that area. It's too important to all the world's economies, with little to no exception. I'd prefer it to be us.
     
  20. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #20
    Legal immunity??

    Isn't this what you did to the Native Americans??

    And Black slaves after that again!!!
     
  21. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #21
    this one you'll have to explain:confused:
     
  22. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #22
    the legal immunity I can understand. It is not there so the US soldier can get away with anything. They are still supposed to be subject to US laws.
    The real reason it is there is to prevent people in Iraq from making up crimes against the people from the US just because they do not like them.

    It is a mess but that is the real reason for it. It more to just protect them. Also remember the laws in the middle East are VERY different from what they are used to. So it is also to protect against them because remember a lot of the laws will be very much against what they are used to.
     
  23. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #23
    No matter who the next president is we will have some sort of occupation there. Don't expect us to just pull every troop out overnight like nothing ever happened.
     
  24. jb60606 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #24
    regardless of whether or not it's signed, 50 bases and permanent establishment can't be installed over night, and the plan could still be overturned even if.

    I still hope the Iraqis reject it. There's no better way for their government to establish sovereignty, and gain more trust from its people, than by deflecting this.



    I feel so terrible for this country's actions.
     
  25. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #25
    I'm honestly surprised that anyone is honestly surprised.
     

Share This Page