PDA

View Full Version : Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control


Achilles
06-07-2008, 05:28 AM
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Full Story (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html)

Intro:
A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilize Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November. We heard a little bit about this a few months back but then it disappeared off the radar. Looks like it's back again :(

jonathan7
06-07-2008, 07:43 AM
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Full Story (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html)

Intro:
We heard a little bit about this a few months back but then it disappeared off the radar. Looks like it's back again :(

That is very very sinister, and seems to confirm to me, that the reasons given for the war were never the real motivations.

If Obama gets in, can he not undo the deal?

Jae Onasi
06-07-2008, 11:04 AM
We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them?

*Don*
06-07-2008, 11:04 AM
The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split.


This part of the article stuck out. Chances are, the Iraqi civilians aren't going to be happy with this. I'm guessing more "protests" are along the way.

jonathan7
06-07-2008, 11:16 AM
We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them?

No, but there is a distinct difference between Germany and Japan and Iraq; fanatical Islam. Also leaving any bases in Iraq, directly plays into the hands of al-Qaeda recruitment.

Litofsky
06-07-2008, 11:28 AM
Bah. This makes me even sicker to know that Bush is our President. I have a hard time describing my antipathy towards him, but this just goes over the line (as do many other thinks passed by his regime Presidency).

Anyways, this sort of dealing makes me nervous, more or less for the future of the World.

EnderWiggin
06-07-2008, 11:37 AM
We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them?

TBH, Germany and Japan aren't chock full of radical terrorists that bomb us every day.

Those bases are not at risk.

They were put into place after the war was won, right?

These that we're talking about here would be like putting 50 bases into Vietnam the day before Saigon fell. They're targets.

_EW_

mimartin
06-07-2008, 01:06 PM
We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them? We don't have 50 of them or control of their airspace. One or two is strategic. I could even see four, one for every branch of the service. Fifty is control not only of Iraq but of the region and that would be a problem to all the surrounding countries. How would we feel if North Korea, China or Russia put 50 bases in Mexico? Heck if Great Britain put 50 bases in Mexico it would be worrisome to us.

Da_Man_2423
06-07-2008, 01:10 PM
If Obama gets in, can he not undo the deal?

Nothing is set in stone, right?

Totenkopf
06-07-2008, 01:24 PM
If all of this is executively driven, most likely. Unless we sign off of some kind of treaty, I'm guessing he could reverse US policy in that region. Much turmoil would likely ensue (I'm NOT saying the ME would "blow up", btw).

mimartin
06-07-2008, 01:47 PM
It does not matter if it is a ratified treaty or only one agreed to in principle we can pull out of it. Bush has set the bar pretty high in dishonoring our commitments to the world community. We pulled out of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, pretty much killed the purpose of the Tobacco Treaty and quit the ABM Treaty. Therefore, if the next president wants to continue the Bush legacy of dishonoring the United States commitments to the rest of the world, this could be another time for us to break our word. I would rather we stopped him from making this commitment in the first place. If the deal is struck, it is a no win situation for the U.S. to pull out of it. Either we are seen as dishonorable by not keeping our word or it is seen as we are bowing to the terrorist and the protestors.

Ghost Down
06-07-2008, 02:32 PM
I like the way Bush thinks! :D

Web Rider
06-07-2008, 03:07 PM
We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them?

there are 3 bases in germany, one is a central European base. There are 5 in Japan, for various branches of the military(navy, marines, army, ect..)
http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm

This is completly unacceptable, all treaties and documents with foreign nations should and need to be ratified by Congress. The Preisdent does not have the right to go off making treaties with other countries all willy nilly. ESPECIALLY these kinda of treaties.

Arcesious
06-07-2008, 03:07 PM
We need to get out of other people's buisness before it's too late. There are numerous other reason why Bush wants a foothold in the Middle East.

Why build 50 military bases and have control of the arispace?

I'll tell you.

Gas is estimated to hit 150 a barrel in July.
In the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia, there's lots of oil.
Many countries do not trust the USA.
As it turns out, The middle east is the most powerful strategical point in the world. It's between Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is the perfect military foothold for a country to have under control, especially if WWIII occurs.

Three bases In germany allows for a small foothold in Europe, and 5 in japan allows for a small foothold for assault/invasion/defense against Asia. We have military bases in many pacific islands. Naval power would be best focused from an attack in the Pacific Ocean if WWIII came.

But, if we do this, we will gain a lot more distrust in those three continents. If we don't, we'll be more militarily vulnerable in the event of WWIII, but we would gain more trust among other countries, if we pull out of there, possibly averting full-scale conflict.

Web Rider
06-07-2008, 03:11 PM
But, if we do this, we will gain a lot more distrust in those three continents. If we don't, we'll be more militarily vulnerable in the event of WWIII, but we would gain more trust among other countries, if we pull out of there, possibly averting full-scale conflict.

And gaining trust from other nations can be much stronger than military control. If the region was your ally, then their armies would be fighting for you, not against you, which is kinda a big deal.

Achilles
06-07-2008, 03:39 PM
This is completly unacceptable, all treaties and documents with foreign nations should and need to be ratified by Congress. The Preisdent does not have the right to go off making treaties with other countries all willy nilly. ESPECIALLY these kinda of treaties.QFT.

Why build 50 military bases and have control of the arispace? It'll be interesting to see where these bases are constructed with relation to the oil pipeline.

As it turns out, The middle east is the most powerful strategical point in the world. It's between Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is the perfect military foothold for a country to have under control, especially if WWIII occurs.Much easier to keep China, India, and Russia in check if we're already camped out in their yards.

Litofsky
06-07-2008, 03:54 PM
This is, as the general consensus seems to be, completely unacceptable. However, if things continue the way they have been going, I have a feeling that we will have a near-permanent base in Iraq.

I agree with Achilles: It'll be interesting to see if the bases are near any of the Oil Pipelines. ;)

I have a feeling that World War Three will be fought over commodities, such as food and fuel. Of course, I wonder if this all could have been avoided if the population was kept in check (I'm not advocating this, though. It's just a question/theory)...

Corinthian
06-07-2008, 04:02 PM
I see no problem here. We have bases in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, as Jae stated. And if you seriously think the Imperial Japanese weren't just as fanatical as Radical Islam, I take it you don't remember who pioneered the strategy of 'Fly Planes into the target'.

Litofsky
06-07-2008, 04:09 PM
I see no problem here. We have bases in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, as Jae stated. And if you seriously think the Imperial Japanese weren't just as fanatical as Radical Islam, I take it you don't remember who pioneered the strategy of 'Fly Planes into the target'.

So, you're proposing that, in order to 'maintain stability,' the United States should keep military bases all over the World (NOTE: This isn't stated, per se, but is my impression from Corinthians's post)? So, supposedly, we're the great mediator? We can do no wrong? Oh, how I would love it if this were true.

My interpretation of your post is: We can't let radicals blow us up, so we'll just occupy them instead. Obviously, occupation succeeds every time. Not only will it result in an angered world at our occupation, but it will anger the entire region for our presence.

Suggesting that course of action is not only foolish, but close minded. If you had an alternate meaning, my apologies, but your post wasn't exactly clear (to me).

Corinthian
06-07-2008, 04:16 PM
Hm. Interesting. I hadn't contemplated it as such. The idea of a global network of military fortresses spanning the entire world is attractive... - By the way, do you think we need to put a garrison at McMurdo Sound?

Achilles
06-07-2008, 04:38 PM
I agree with Achilles: It'll be interesting to see if the bases are near any of the Oil Pipelines. ;)
Map of oil pipelines (http://www.iags.org/iraq-map-large.gif)
Map of current major base camps and forward operating bases (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/iraq-fobs-2005apr21.jpg)

Totenkopf
06-07-2008, 04:38 PM
It does not matter if it is a ratified treaty or only one agreed to in principle we can pull out of it. Bush has set the bar pretty high in dishonoring our commitments to the world community. We pulled out of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, pretty much killed the purpose of the Tobacco Treaty and quit the ABM Treaty. Therefore, if the next president wants to continue the Bush legacy of dishonoring the United States commitments to the rest of the world, this could be another time for us to break our word. I would rather we stopped him from making this commitment in the first place. If the deal is struck, it is a no win situation for the U.S. to pull out of it. Either we are seen as dishonorable by not keeping our word or it is seen as we are bowing to the terrorist and the protestors.


We never actually signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty, so there was nothing to w/drawl from in the first place. Clinton (Bill) didn't exactly favor it either. The ABM treaty was no longer legally valid as the USSR ceased to exist. My only concern, frankly, is the financial cost of any further obligations in the ME.

Also, why would one even wonder if the base camps would be placed anywhere near a strategic natural resource and it's infrastructure? :rolleyes: It only makes sense.

Litofsky
06-07-2008, 04:47 PM
Map of oil pipelines (http://www.iags.org/iraq-map-large.gif)
Map of current major base camps and forward operating bases (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/iraq-fobs-2005apr21.jpg)

*Appalled* Wow. I expected as much coming from the Government, but actually having 'proof' is more astounding. Thanks for that, Achilles. I feel even more ashamed of our President now than I did a few moments ago.

*Shakes head* Bush and his Presidency (or lack thereof).

I realize that all of this could be considered 'coincidental,' and is different to each person. It's all about interpretation. ;)

Corinthian
06-07-2008, 05:54 PM
I don't get it. You find this so incriminating. Why? Iraq's only significant natural resource is Oil, which happens to be precious as Gold right now. What else is there for us to protect in that region but sand and bones? The only thing of strategic value is their Oil, unless you happen to be a glassblower.

*Don*
06-07-2008, 06:05 PM
What else is there for us to protect in that region but sand and bones? The only thing of strategic value is their Oil...

The question that I'd like to ask is why does the United States feel it necessary to "protect" other countries commoditities?
Granted, we're in desperate need of cheaper oil, but that doesn't justify walking into another country and sitting on their resources.

Corinthian
06-07-2008, 06:41 PM
Because those commodities are the only valuable thing in Iraq unless someone devises a sand-based power plant. Besides, I think you know the mantra.

'The Oil must flow.'

*Don*
06-07-2008, 06:53 PM
Because those commodities are the only valuable thing in Iraq unless someone devises a sand-based power plant. Besides, I think you know the mantra.

'The Oil must flow.'

I realize that.
What I was asking was: why is the United States government so bent on pilfering that oil?
Face it, the Iraqis will set the price for the oil when they begin exporting. Its not like the American army can just siphon the gas while they're there.
Plus, why does the oil need to be protected by us? The Iraqis know that oil is their greatest asset and its government will use all its resources to protect it.

Personally, I feel that Bush wants to pass this accord so that we can get a foothold in the middle east. Oil isn't the primary reason.

Pho3nix
06-07-2008, 06:54 PM
Safe to say I'm not surprised. =)

Corinthian
06-07-2008, 07:09 PM
All it's resources? We are talking about a country in RUINS. This place can be charitably described as 'Hell on a Cracker', and it's got the psychotic inhabitants to populate it.

Achilles
06-07-2008, 07:23 PM
I realize that all of this could be considered 'coincidental,' and is different to each person. It's all about interpretation. ;)I think it's rather difficult to defend the argument that we aren't there for oil when a vast majority of our bases seems to be within a short distance of an oil pipeline. The whole, "oh no, we're only here to free these oppressed people and spread democracy" spiel kinda falls apart in light of the facts.

Litofsky
06-07-2008, 07:26 PM
I don't get it. You find this so incriminating. Why? Iraq's only significant natural resource is Oil, which happens to be precious as Gold right now. What else is there for us to protect in that region but sand and bones? The only thing of strategic value is their Oil, unless you happen to be a glassblower.

I don't think that you're seeing my point. We went into Iraq based off of the 'intelligence' that Hussein was harboring 'terrorists' and "Weapon of Mass Destruction." We went to Iraq to 'liberate' their people, not their oil. And what are we going for now? *Points to Achilles' posts above*

Not only is this completely contradictory in nature (protecting an object rather than people), but it shows that the current administration is either...

1) ...a completely incompetent, bumbling composition of selfish People...

...or...

2) ...a 'puppet-administration,' following orders from someone (or a group of people) from somewhere else in the world/country. Goodness, I wish I had a President with a mind of his/her own and a will.

Corinthian
06-07-2008, 07:30 PM
Or maybe that they're just realistic and realize that we can actually liberate the country and strengthen America's position simultaneously?

mimartin
06-07-2008, 07:43 PM
We never actually signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty, so there was nothing to w/drawl from in the first place. Never said we did, but we did have a say in the negotiation of the treaty. We also never ratified the tobacco treaty, but we were involved in the negotiation and insisted that it be as watered down as possible. Seems if the U.S. is to negotiate in good faith, they must actually think there is a possibility of passage. If all we are going to do is water down the treaty then perhaps we should stay out of the negotiations if we do not intend to try to ratify the treaty.

We also did not pull out of the ABM Treaty because the USSR no longer existed; we pulled out because a missile defense system was illegal under the terms of the treaty. If it were legal, we would be expecting Russia to follow the terms of the treaty.

Litofsky
06-07-2008, 08:03 PM
Or maybe that they're just realistic and realize that we can actually liberate the country and strengthen America's position simultaneously?

I think I understand where you're coming from, but (to me) it's an illogical reason. You say that we are "liberating" (Iraq), and are simultaneously strengthen our Global Standing? That would be great, except for the pretenses under which we invaded.

The Bush Administration told the American Public (who, may I add, were swept up in the fury of September Eleventh) that Saddam was harboring 'terrorists' and "Weapons of Mass Destruction." This was, as we know now, a blatant lie. Bush used one of the lowest times in American History to bring us into War, and now we're going to have a tough time getting out.

So, therefore, the logic by which you are basing your claim is false. It would make sense if we were freeing a country that was under the command of an evil dictator for genuine reasons, then it would make sense. However, the Bush Administration is more concerned with the commodity of Oil, and would rather have it then help the Iraqi People.

igyman
06-07-2008, 08:31 PM
Or maybe that they're just realistic and realize that we can actually liberate the country and strengthen America's position simultaneously?

I believe what you're talking about is called occupation. You can't liberate a country and then fortify your own military position and thus your control in said country.

Corinthian
06-07-2008, 10:44 PM
Sure you can. You just peel one thumb off and put yours in it's place.

Web Rider
06-08-2008, 02:30 AM
Sure you can. You just peel one thumb off and put yours in it's place.

thats still occupation and oppression. There is no liberty and freedom when you are under somebody's thumb, REGARDLESS of who's thumb it may be.

Strengthening one's position would be to ally yourselves with the people in the area. An enemy you've made a friend is an enemy you don't have to fight, what better solution for people you didn't like than having them WILLINGLY fight for you?

A nation cannot be an island in today's world. Military power makes us only a naive and foolish nation, to believe that we can run the world through strength of arms has been tried, tested, and failed on every account. We are no exception.

Achilles
06-08-2008, 02:48 AM
Military power makes us only a naive and foolish nation, to believe that we can run the world through strength of arms has been tried, tested, and failed on every account. We are no exception.Empires don't tend to go all quiet and pretty-like when they do either :(

Web Rider
06-08-2008, 02:50 AM
Empires don't tend to go all quiet and pretty-like when they do either :(

no, and unforunately the fall of the US will cause major shockwaves in the rest of the world.

Jae Onasi
06-08-2008, 03:05 AM
What substantiation do we have for this article? None. Zip. Zilch.

Fifty bases sounds like a ridiculously high number to me. Anyone can say "oh, I have information leaked from the Pentagon" and make an article out of it to inflame the masses willing to believe any anti-American thing that they read.

Achilles
06-08-2008, 03:21 AM
What substantiation do we have for this article? None. Zip. Zilch. Critical thinking when it's convenient. Love it.

So the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman29nov29,0,3241305.story) (11/07), NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18368586) (01/08), and The Independent (first post) have been covering a completely made-up story for months?

Funny that when we talk about something and want a source, we usually look to some sort of reputable media outlet. When a reputable media outlet breaks a story, Jae wants a source :D

(hint: it's call investigative journalism for a reason ;)).

Fifty bases sounds like a ridiculously high number to me. Might seem high to the Iraqis too. Could explain why al-Maliki is pushing back. Doesn't mean Bush didn't ask for them though.

Anyone can say "oh, I have information leaked from the Pentagon" and make an article out of it to inflame the masses willing to believe any anti-American thing that they read. Yes anyone can. But generally an editor will only push a story if the source is reliable. This is how newspapers avoid getting sued the Federal government and stuff.

jonathan7
06-08-2008, 07:53 AM
Critical thinking when it's convenient. Love it.

Think that's quite harsh on Jae there my friend.

All it's resources? We are talking about a country in RUINS. This place can be charitably described as 'Hell on a Cracker', and it's got the psychotic inhabitants to populate it.

Indeed and who made it that way?

Empires don't tend to go all quiet and pretty-like when they do either.

The British Empire went pretty quietly :p (Although admittedly two world wars, were a contributing factor in its decline).

no, and unforunately the fall of the US will cause major shockwaves in the rest of the world.

I'm not so sure, it will be interesting to see how globalisation and the fall of the established order effects things when it happens.

Jae Onasi
06-08-2008, 11:12 AM
So the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman29nov29,0,3241305.story) (11/07), NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18368586) (01/08), and The Independent (first post) have been covering a completely made-up story for months? I didn't say it was made up. You didn't include those articles.

Yes anyone can. But generally an editor will only push a story if the source is reliable. This is how newspapers avoid getting sued the Federal government and stuff.
Tell that to the NY Times. Their editors allowed stories through that were written with made-up facts. Some of the stories were just outright fiction. CBS did a great job with Dan Rather's 'oops' too.

mimartin
06-08-2008, 12:39 PM
Fifty bases sounds like a ridiculously high number to me. Anyone can say "oh, I have information leaked from the Pentagon" and make an article out of it to inflame the masses willing to believe any anti-American thing that they read. I hope you are talking about those outside the United States seeing this article as being anti-American. Because I do not consider the article anti-American no more than I saw the attacks of President Clinton, President Reagan, President Carter or even President Nixon as anti-American. Personally, if I stuck my head in the sand and believed everything my government said that I would be anti-American. The founding fathers design this government for the people to actively participate, even though they did not fully trust the people. In fairness the founding fathers did not fully trust the government either or they would not have designed the checks and balances the way the did. I just believe questioning my government’s policy or even proposed policies is not anti-American.

I didn't say it was made up. You didn't include those articles. Tell that to the NY Times. Their editors allowed stories through that were written with made-up facts. So we should disregard this story by the New York Times entitled “U.S. Not Seeking Permanent Iraq Bases, Ambassador Says”? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-crocker.html?ref=world)

From the articles, I have read I would say neither side is telling the truth. The Bush administration is saying they are not seeking any permanent bases (I tend to believe this, but that does not mean they are not seeking bases there until the Iraqi oil supply is depleted.) The Iraqi’s are saying 50 and permanent.

Achilles
06-08-2008, 05:04 PM
The British Empire went pretty quietly :p (Although admittedly two world wars, were a contributing factor in its decline). Depends on how you look at it, I guess. From a "leveling London was the beginning of the end" perspective, I think you could say that it did not go quietly. To your point though, the draw-down was rather uneventful in comparison to others. :)

I didn't say it was made up.You're right, you did not use those exact words.

You didn't include those articles.And that changes what?

FWIW, I did point out that this was part of an ongoing story in the first post.

Tell that to the NY Times. Their editors allowed stories through that were written with made-up facts. Some of the stories were just outright fiction. CBS did a great job with Dan Rather's 'oops' too.There are always exceptions. I think we need more than your incredulity/new-found skepticism to establish that this case is one of them.

I do think that it would be a display of breathtaking ineptitude though to learn that every news source covering this particular story for the past 7-8 months has been fabricating information, as you seem to want to imply.

Corinthian
06-08-2008, 06:04 PM
Mostly the insurgents made it that way, but I won't deny that the magnificent glory of the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank caused a fair bit of damage too, along with the rest of our beautiful military technology. The fact remains, however, that the only thing valuable in Iraq is it's oil. It's been that way for some considerable period of time.

The Source
06-08-2008, 06:14 PM
We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them?
Agreed. I personally think that we have to be big brother in Iraq. Regardless about how we got there, I think we need to take a serious look at the country. Once someone new comes into office, the dirty laundry of President Bush will be revealed. I personally believe that Bush needs to be put on trial, so we can get the whole truth out in the open. When I think back on election 2000, we needed Bush to remove the unhumbled Gore. Within this election cycle, we need an unbiased individual to evalutate and scruitinaize Iraq. Obama doesn't have any military logic, which would help him see the pros and cons of Iraq. Bush is attempting to keep himself out of trouble.

Jae Onasi
06-08-2008, 08:19 PM
You're right, you did not use those exact words.Nor did I imply it. Did you consider the option that I was also considering someone quoting a bad source? Apparently not.

And that changes what?My perception of your source.

FWIW, I did point out that this was part of an ongoing story in the first post. And your point is?

There are always exceptions. I think we need more than your incredulity/new-found skepticism to establish that this case is one of them. Are you always like this, or is this just one of your good days?

I do think that it would be a display of breathtaking ineptitude though to learn that every news source covering this particular story for the past 7-8 months has been fabricating information, as you seem to want to imply.Did I say all of them were fabricating? No, I said the NYTimes and CBS had fabricated. My trust in news organizations is not that high after seeing what seems to be a problem in at least 2 of what had been highly respected news organizations.

Outside of the US, there are under 50 US permanent bases _total_ around the world. There are 201 bases in the US (barring any changes made since the wiki entry was written). If there are less than 50 total bases scattered around the world, why would the US suddenly put 50 permanent bases into one single country smaller than the size of Texas?

If you include all the minor installations like weather stations, ranges, fueling depots, and other minor facilities, the number of overseas installations goes up dramatically, on the order of hundreds. However, the article you quote specifies "bases", not "installations". There is a big difference in terminology with that. Either the source is wrong, the writer quoted the source incorrectly, somewhere along the line someone didn't double check their facts to get the proper terminology, or the author is artificially manipulating the terminology to make it sound like something it really shouldn't be. Furthermore, Bush can make all the deals in the world he wants with respect to the military, but next January we'll have a different Commander-in-Chief, and I'm sure either Obama or McCain will have their own orders for the military.

Achilles
06-08-2008, 08:49 PM
Nor did I imply it.At this point it seems that you would prefer to insult my intelligence.

My perception of your source.Maybe I should have let you rant a little longer then *shrugs*

And your point is? That had you chosen to, you could have done a little leg work of your own.

Are you always like this, or is this just one of your good days? Like what? Bemused by which topics you choose approach with skepticism as compared to which topics you don't? Yes, I'm always like that.

Did I say all of them were fabricating? No, I said the NYTimes and CBS had fabricated. My trust in news organizations is not that high after seeing what seems to be a problem in at least 2 of what had been highly respected news organizations.Neither NY Times or CBS were mentioned except by you and only to point out that news organizations can sometimes be unreliable (a point which you raise again here). So either you were addressing a specific example or you were not. If you were, then it doesn't really apply and now that we acknowledge that and we can move on. If it was something more general, then that's okay too, but saying that it isn't when it sure does seem that it is only causes us to waste time while we play "Guess What Jae Really Means".

Outside of the US, there are under 50 US permanent bases _total_ around the world. There are 201 bases in the US (barring any changes made since the wiki entry was written). If there are less than 50 total bases scattered around the world, why would the US suddenly put 50 permanent bases into one single country smaller than the size of Texas? I'm guessing that it might have something to do with 1) oil and 2) strategic/tactical advantages.

Maybe we could ask PNAC to tell us why they want it so bad and then we can add their list to ours.

If you include all the minor installations like weather stations, ranges, fueling depots, and other minor facilities, the number of overseas installations goes up dramatically, on the order of hundreds. However, the article you quote specifies "bases", not "installations". There is a big difference in terminology with that. Either the source is wrong, the writer quoted the source incorrectly, somewhere along the line someone didn't double check their facts to get the proper terminology, or the author is artificially manipulating the terminology to make it sound like something it really shouldn't be. You missed one:
or Bush really does want 50 bases there.

I agree that all of these possibilities are valid.

Furthermore, Bush can make all the deals in the world he wants with respect to the military, but next January we'll have a different Commander-in-Chief, and I'm sure either Obama or McCain will have their own orders for the military.Which wouldn't change the fact that he's doing this now. I think mimartin makes a pretty good arguement above that it might look bad if one President makes a treaty (illegally, but that's beside the point) and then another doesn't uphold it.

jonathan7
06-08-2008, 09:11 PM
Perhaps this is just me but you seem to be getting quite hot under the collar here and getting a bit snappy with one another... Lets all have a listen to this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXN9r6tPgHU

:)

Aren't you a little young for Orbital? :p

I'm a little young for Beethoven and Mozart too, but still listen to them ;) My music taste is very varied, Queen, U2 or Rage Against the Machine would be my top 3 favourite bands as an example.

Achilles
06-08-2008, 09:16 PM
Aren't you a little young for Orbital? :xp:

Relenzo2
06-08-2008, 09:22 PM
Wow. Fall of the US. WWIII (has noone played BF2142 here?). Sand-powered power plants and lots o' glass.
At first I said, "Do you really think the President will take control of Iraq? The American public hates him just for still BEING there." But then, he practically has control already. Who know, as well, what's going on in those 'talks". Just, you can never be sure.
*blows Christmas ornament in middle of desert* of course "spreading democrary" is crap of an excuse. Even if that was, no country has the right to stick its oversized nose in other people's buisness that way. I thought that the government believed the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" thing though. Well, I could be wrong. Going to war for oil won't really solve anything, nor, regrettably, will changing Presidents, no matter how much power they still have. Except maybe if Ron Paul becomes President. The media thinks he's invisible, but I have heard great things about him. Well, no, that won't be enough. Regrettably, I can't get YouTube to work for me right now, so I don't know what that video says... man.

Totenkopf
06-09-2008, 04:21 AM
Never said we did, but we did have a say in the negotiation of the treaty. We also never ratified the tobacco treaty, but we were involved in the negotiation and insisted that it be as watered down as possible. Seems if the U.S. is to negotiate in good faith, they must actually think there is a possibility of passage. If all we are going to do is water down the treaty then perhaps we should stay out of the negotiations if we do not intend to try to ratify the treaty.

We also did not pull out of the ABM Treaty because the USSR no longer existed; we pulled out because a missile defense system was illegal under the terms of the treaty. If it were legal, we would be expecting Russia to follow the terms of the treaty.

The way you crafted your argument suggested otherwise. No harm in w/drawing from a negotiation that ultimately isn't in your best interests. A deal for the sake of a deal is profoundly foolish. The whole point of entering negotiations is to craft a treaty as closely as you can to your own interests (whether you're the US or any nation). If that fails, you pull out. As to the IBM treaty, it died before the ABM system was truly an issue b/c the USSR collapsed in the early 1990s. Also, we had the right to w/drawl from that treaty anyway.

Jae Onasi
06-10-2008, 02:25 PM
At this point it seems that you would prefer to insult my intelligence.You don't like being called on putting up a bad article, so I guess you think this kind of tactic will be more effective?

That had you chosen to, you could have done a little leg work of your own. As you are so fond of saying to me, the burden of proof is on you. It's your argument, you do the legwork.

If it was something more general, then that's okay too, but saying that it isn't when it sure does seem that it is only causes us to waste time while we play "Guess What Jae Really Means".The days when you could rely on reporters to present information without an (obvious) agenda are gone. There is the distinct possibility that this particular reporter is either grossly misinformed or is pushing his agenda.

I'm guessing that it might have something to do with 1) oil and 2) strategic/tactical advantages.
Maybe we could ask PNAC to tell us why they want it so bad and then we can add their list to ours. I don't doubt for a moment that the US seeks to have some kind of presence in Iraq, just as the US has done in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. I'm disputing this silly notion of 50 permanent bases, not whether we'll have a presence there or not.

You missed one:
or Bush really does want 50 bases there.I didn't miss it at all. I discounted it as either a mistake or an attempt to mislead on the part of the source or reporter, mistake being the more likely of the two. It could very easily be the incorrect usage of 'base' when they meant 'installation', but since the author specified 'permanent bases' I don't know if that's the case or not.

Increasing the number of overseas bases by over 100%, and increasing our military base size by 20% when we've been closing bases, makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, is Congress going to approve the necessary appropriations to increase overseas base numbers by over 100%, with all those going into one single country? I think you'd see ice in hell before that happened in this Congress.

I agree that all of these possibilities are valid.Then why are you choosing to believe the one option that makes no sense from a base number and financing standpoint?

Which wouldn't change the fact that he's doing this now. I think mimartin makes a pretty good arguement above that it might look bad if one President makes a treaty (illegally, but that's beside the point) and then another doesn't uphold it.
That's again assuming that Bush is even doing that. I would hope that future Presidents wouldn't condone illegal treaties.

Achilles
06-10-2008, 05:07 PM
You don't like being called on putting up a bad article, so I guess you think this kind of tactic will be more effective? It's a bad article? When did we establish this?

As you are so fond of saying to me, the burden of proof is on you. It's your argument, you do the legwork.Wrong context, Jae. We're discussing the amount of research you did before posting, not the veracity of the article. Since you stated that the additional articles changed your perspective, that means that the articles were meaningful to the discussion. You certainly could have found them on your own without my having posted them for you.

I don't think the proposition is unreasonable considering that I made reference to this being an ongoing story in the very first post. My instinct would have been to find out more before posting, but I am also aware that I do things differently than a lot of people.

The days when you could rely on reporters to present information without an (obvious) agenda are gone. There is the distinct possibility that this particular reporter is either grossly misinformed or is pushing his agenda. Ok. Thank you for clarifying that you were speaking in general terms.

Yes, you are right to be skeptical, but I think that similar reporting from several other news outlets would counters your "this particular reporter" argument above.

PS: I saw a new article this morning that has quotes directly from Iraqi officials, however the news service I saw it on had cycled in some new headlines between when I left the house and when I got to work. If I can find it again, I'll post the article.

I don't doubt for a moment that the US seeks to have some kind of presence in Iraq, just as the US has done in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. I'm disputing this silly notion of 50 permanent bases, not whether we'll have a presence there or not.Pretty sure that when I label things as "silly", I get PMs from the staff. Why the double-standard, LucasForums?

I didn't miss it at all. I discounted it as either a mistake or an attempt to mislead on the part of the source or reporter, mistake being the more likely of the two. It could very easily be the incorrect usage of 'base' when they meant 'installation', but since the author specified 'permanent bases' I don't know if that's the case or not. I don't think that decision is yours. You've made your opinion clear, but that does not make it fact.

Increasing the number of overseas bases by over 100%, and increasing our military base size by 20% when we've been closing bases, makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, is Congress going to approve the necessary appropriations to increase overseas base numbers by over 100%, with all those going into one single country? I think you'd see ice in hell before that happened in this Congress. Many of the "bases" are Iraqi military installations that we would be taking over. I don't think we have firm numbers on how many of them would be "new".

And if you'd like to start a thread about things that our government does even when it doesn't make sense, let me know :D

Then why are you choosing to believe the one option that makes no sense from a base number and financing standpoint? Why am I not willing to rule out options arbitarily? Because I don't have a good reason to do so.

For the record, I "believe" all of the options.

That's again assuming that Bush is even doing that. I would hope that future Presidents wouldn't condone illegal treaties.I agree on both your points.

KinchyB
06-10-2008, 05:36 PM
You don't like being called on putting up a bad article, so I guess you think this kind of tactic will be more effective?

Curious as to why this is a bad article...? From what i can see it's fairly legit and with a little research verifiable.

Guardian... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa)UK Paper...April, 2008

The Kind-of Beginning (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html)...Whitehouse.gov...November 2007

People Protesting Agreement (http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/7755.htm)...blog...2008

Potential Reasons for the Pact (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/06/707A0592-4B00-44BA-9F9F-7B157D66AA39.html)...Interview...June 2008

McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html)...US Paper...June, 2008

interesting quote from McClatchy...

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

However, the article you quote specifies "bases", not "installations". There is a big difference in terminology with that. Either the source is wrong, the writer quoted the source incorrectly, somewhere along the line someone didn't double check their facts to get the proper terminology, or the author is artificially manipulating the terminology to make it sound like something it really shouldn't be.

Curious as to what definition you are using for base and installation (Ideally with verifiable references). From what I can see the terms are quite often used interchangeably or that an installation is actually a type of base. For Example...A Military Loan site...

Link (http://themilitaryzone.com/foreign_bases.html)

A list of "Installations" however it also has the name of "bases" in the list of "installations"...?

Achilles
06-10-2008, 05:38 PM
McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html)...US Paper...June, 2008Ooo, that's the one I saw this morning. Thank you for the link (and the quote). :)

Totenkopf
06-10-2008, 05:54 PM
The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

Depends on how you interpret expansion. Are US forces going to be spread out across "54-8" bases versus the current 30 or so or are they implying US forces are going to increase commensurately to ~2x their current number? Seems that the increase in numbers of bases (what type...firebases?, forts?...) may have more to do with spreading existing troops out to cover ground more efficiently.

KinchyB
06-10-2008, 06:12 PM
Seems that the increase in numbers of bases (what type...firebases?, forts?...) may have more to do with spreading existing troops out to cover ground more efficiently.

I would have to agree that this is what they mean/would do. Given the pressure to reduce our troop numbers in Iraq I think it's close to the only option now that I think about it, but that's assuming they are serious about decreasing our troop presence in Iraq.

As to what types of bases they would be...your guess is as good as mine...maybe better. :)

Jae Onasi
06-10-2008, 10:33 PM
It's a bad article? When did we establish this?OK, that was a bad choice of wording on my part. Having some incorrect or poorly defined terms doesn't make the entire article bad, so I'm sorry about that.

You certainly could have found them on your own without my having posted them for you. I could have. It's still your job if you're trying to support your points.

I don't think the proposition is unreasonable considering that I made reference to this being an ongoing story in the very first post. My instinct would have been to find out more before posting, but I am also aware that I do things differently than a lot of people. 'On-going story' means to me that it's that author's or news organization's own series. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's 'on-going' for other news sources. An on-going story could have been exclusive to that particular newspaper.

Pretty sure that when I label things as "silly", I get PMs from the staff.Except I wasn't labeling _you_ as silly, or even necessarily referring to you in that comment.


Yes, you are right to be skeptical, but I think that similar reporting from several other news outlets would counters your "this particular reporter" argument above. Fair enough--I'll give you that point.

I don't think that decision is yours. You've made your opinion clear, but that does not make it fact. None of it's 'fact' anyway at this point--it's hearsay from an unnamed source.

Many of the "bases" are Iraqi military installations that we would be taking over. I don't think we have firm numbers on how many of them would be "new". They'd have to be brought up to US standards. Renovation costs a lot, too.

And if you'd like to start a thread about things that our government does even when it doesn't make sense, let me know :D:lol: Actually, that would be a lot of fun. I understand that the government does any number of incredibly stupid things.

Why am I not willing to rule out options arbitarily? Because I don't have a good reason to do so.
For the record, I "believe" all of the options. I view some of them on a continuum of 'more plausible vs. less plausible'. Bush making a secret, quasi-legal treaty that would increase the military budget dramatically when we both know Congress would never fund it falls into the 'less plausible' section on that continuum.

I agree on both your points.Shh--don't tell people that. That'll send them into shock and we might have to do CPR or something. :D

Sorry if I sound crabby. I'm having a singularly awful week, but that doesn't mean you deserve being snapped at.

Curious as to what definition you are using for base and installation (Ideally with verifiable references). From what I can see the terms are quite often used interchangeably or that an installation is actually a type of base. For Example...A Military Loan site...
fort - a fortified military post where troops are stationed.
garrison
military post, post - military installation at which a body of troops is stationed;
In general, a military base provides accommodations for one or more units, but it may also be used as a command center, a training ground, or a proving ground. In most cases, a military base relies on some outside help in order to operate. However, certain complex bases are able to endure by themselves for long periods because they are able to provide food, water and other life support necessities for their inhabitants while under siege.
It's the other way around--a base is a type of installation. However, an installation is not necessarily a base/fort. Installation is the broad term, base/fort is a more specific sub-type of installation. Bases or forts garrison troops, while installations provide support to the military in some way (e.g. weather stations, fuel depots, and so forth), but don't necessarily have units of troops. My brother-in-law was part of the installation that guarded the US consulate in Germany, but that installation did not house a unit so it was not called a base/fort.

Achilles
06-11-2008, 02:37 AM
OK, that was a bad choice of wording on my part. Having some incorrect or poorly defined terms doesn't make the entire article bad, so I'm sorry about that. But you don't know that it was incorrect or poorly worded. You only suspect that it is. That doesn't make it so.

I could have. It's still your job if you're trying to support your points.I don't see how your assumptions regarding the substantiation of the article have anything to do with me. No one forced you make them, Jae. I am certainly not responsible for them.

'On-going story' means to me that it's that author's or news organization's own series. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's 'on-going' for other news sources. An on-going story could have been exclusive to that particular newspaper. I appreciate you sharing with me how you define that term. I will make an honest effort to keep that in mind next time I consider using it so as to avoid potential confusion.

Except I wasn't labeling _you_ as silly, or even necessarily referring to you in that comment.I repeat: "Pretty sure that when I label things as 'silly', I get PMs from the staff."

Double-standard, Jae. If it's okay when you do it, then it's okay when anyone else does it too. If it's "snark" or "unfriendly" when one of us does it, then it's those things when you do it too, Jae.

If we are going by what we say about things, then I think you owe me one heck of an apology for the run-around you've given me in the past.

Fair enough--I'll give you that point. Thank you.

None of it's 'fact' anyway at this point--it's hearsay from an unnamed source. I am not sure how this is related to the point that I made, but I repeat my earlier agreement that some degree of skepticism is prudent.

They'd have to be brought up to US standards. Renovation costs a lot, too.That doesn't tell me anything. It only tells me that it would be expensive. It doesn't tell me that the story isn't true.

:lol: Actually, that would be a lot of fun. I understand that the government does any number of incredibly stupid things. Just not this, right? This is your argument, correct?

I view some of them on a continuum of 'more plausible vs. less plausible'. Bush making a secret, quasi-legal treaty that would increase the military budget dramatically when we both know Congress would never fund it falls into the 'less plausible' section on that continuum. Same argument that I made above. This doesn't tell me that Bush isn't trying to do this.

Shh--don't tell people that. That'll send them into shock and we might have to do CPR or something. :D You'll have to do it: my certification expired years ago. ;)

Sorry if I sound crabby. I'm having a singularly awful week, but that doesn't mean you deserve being snapped at. I hope things get better for you soon.

KinchyB
06-11-2008, 04:57 PM
It's the other way around--a base is a type of installation. However, an installation is not necessarily a base/fort. Installation is the broad term, base/fort is a more specific sub-type of installation. Bases or forts garrison troops, while installations provide support to the military in some way (e.g. weather stations, fuel depots, and so forth), but don't necessarily have units of troops. My brother-in-law was part of the installation that guarded the US consulate in Germany, but that installation did not house a unit so it was not called a base/fort.

So a base is basically defined as a military building that can house units. A unit (or company if you will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_(military_unit))) typically consists of 75 to 200 soldiers. Also, a base can be considered one of the following (citing your own source of wikipedia)


Airbase
yard or shipyard
garrison
station
post
dock
depot
activity
magazine
arsenal
proving ground
armory
fort
camp
barracks
caserne
facility
field
reservation
installation (in the generic)

So having 50 new bases, using any combination of the above, in iraq would mean a minimum of having 3,750 troops in iraq at the new bases (on top of the ones that are already there in our current bases). If each unit were maxed out at 200 (which i doubt considering enrollment figures for the military haven't been great, but regardless) then there would be an additional 10,000 troops in addition to what's already there at least.

Now the question is, with these numbers would it still be considered a reduction in the number of troops if we proceed with the creation of 50 new bases? Looking over the numbers it is possible to do both, assuming the last number I heard for the number of troops we have in Iraq (20,000) is still somewhat accurate.

So, now the question is, why are 50 additional bases in iraq unreasonable?

As for the reason...let's point to the elephant in the room...we want the oil. :)

Arcesious
06-11-2008, 05:10 PM
The bases in that reference are still are military installations; and if there's anything I know about military bases, it's that they're intended for well... 'Military purposes...'

Totenkopf
06-11-2008, 06:23 PM
....Now the question is, with these numbers would it still be considered a reduction in the number of troops if we proceed with the creation of 50 new bases? Looking over the numbers it is possible to do both, assuming the last number I heard for the number of troops we have in Iraq (20,000) is still somewhat accurate.



I'm sure there are many who only wish we had a mere 20000 in Iraq. It would make a helluva a lot of sense, though, to set up forces all along the pipeline routes under the current circumstances. Many of the despots in that region would like to see a "democratic" Iraq strangled in its crib. To paraphrase Dune, "oil is life", especially for ANY govt that ends up controlling Iraq.

JediMaster12
06-11-2008, 09:47 PM
I don't get it. You find this so incriminating. Why? Iraq's only significant natural resource is Oil, which happens to be precious as Gold right now. What else is there for us to protect in that region but sand and bones? The only thing of strategic value is their Oil, unless you happen to be a glassblower.
Iraq has the largest source of oil in the world. The establishment of military bases has been a fancy of military leaders for a long time. Strategically, it gives a foothold in the Middle East for US interests. However the establishment is really a front for the already illegally economic seisure of those resources and that's illegal because our presence there is illegal.

The US has had a history of its foreign policies reflecting its economic interests and political interests. That's why we financed Osama in Afghanistan.

Achilles
06-12-2008, 12:13 AM
Iraq has the largest source of oil in the world. Are you sure? I thought that was Saudi Arabia.

That's why we financed Osama in Afghanistan.Unfortunately, based on what I've seen, this is debatable. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but the "evidence" I've seen for this is not rock-solid.

No question that we did finance the mujahideen, but my understanding is that a direct connection to UBL hasn't been established. I would welcome any sources that you have which state otherwise.

Lange
06-12-2008, 05:48 AM
Looks like America is trying their hardest to be the most hated country in the world ><

Jae Onasi
06-12-2008, 10:31 AM
So a base is basically defined as a military building that can house units. A unit (or company if you will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_(military_unit))) typically consists of 75 to 200 soldiers. Also, a base can be considered one of the following (citing your own source of wikipedia)


Airbase
yard or shipyard
garrison
station
post
dock
depot
activity
magazine
arsenal
proving ground
armory
fort
camp
barracks
caserne
facility
field
reservation
installation (in the generic)

So, now the question is, why are 50 additional bases in iraq unreasonable?

As for the reason...let's point to the elephant in the room...we want the oil. :)

A "base", the way the US military uses it for a permanent, staffed facility, typically has at least a brigade (1500-4000 troops) and associated support staff. If you look at the list of forts and bases that the various armed services have, they are all quite a bit bigger than the smaller facilities you listed above. The wiki article is not specific to the US, it also included a discussion of the UK, for instance. The Army differentiates between forts and other installations like ranges and proving grounds. It lists 43 forts on its site. USAF has 65, USN has 54, and the Marines have 9 (some of the Marine bases are part of the USN, hence the low number) bases listed on their home sites. Note that base closures may not have been accounted for on outside sites if you're looking at those. The use of the term 'base' or 'fort' in the US Military is more specific than the way the article writer appears to be using it.

The writer, or his source, could have been a lot more clear if he had just used 'facility' or 'installation'. The way it's written now, the reporter makes it sound like Bush wants to send in 75,000-200,000 troops to Iraq, and a lot more people than that if you include support staff. If the writer did that to influence negative views of the US and/or the war, rather than just report the news (and the Independent has a history of mixing opinion with fact in its paper outside of the obvious editorial columns), I take issue with that. If it's just a mistake, then the author should fix that problem to minimize confusion.

I'll agree with you that oil is the big reason we're there, with perhaps protection of Israel as a distant second reason.

Web Rider
06-12-2008, 11:27 AM
Looks like America is trying their hardest to be the most hated country in the world ><

no, we're not really trying that hard.

KinchyB
06-12-2008, 11:47 AM
A "base", the way the US military uses it for a permanent, staffed facility, typically has at least a brigade (1500-4000 troops) and associated support staff. If you look at the list of forts and bases that the various armed services have, they are all quite a bit bigger than the smaller facilities you listed above. The wiki article is not specific to the US, it also included a discussion of the UK, for instance. The Army differentiates between forts and other installations like ranges and proving grounds. It lists 43 forts on its site. USAF has 65, USN has 54, and the Marines have 9 (some of the Marine bases are part of the USN, hence the low number) bases listed on their home sites. Note that base closures may not have been accounted for on outside sites if you're looking at those. The use of the term 'base' or 'fort' in the US Military is more specific than the way the article writer appears to be using it.

The writer, or his source, could have been a lot more clear if he had just used 'facility' or 'installation'. The way it's written now, the reporter makes it sound like Bush wants to send in 75,000-200,000 troops to Iraq, and a lot more people than that if you include support staff. If the writer did that to influence negative views of the US and/or the war, rather than just report the news (and the Independent has a history of mixing opinion with fact in its paper outside of the obvious editorial columns), I take issue with that. If it's just a mistake, then the author should fix that problem to minimize confusion.

Sources?

I said in my previous post that I had looked at the websites of the various branches themselves. --Jae

To this point your entire post is opinion...which is fine...however, it does nothing to show why the article is invalid as there are no facts stated. If you don't mind, please include some sources for your numbers...also, if you do it may be helpful to include why those sources contradict the sources you used earlier. Thanks!! ;)

Totenkopf
06-14-2008, 02:33 AM
Well, as far as the # of bases go, she cites the web sites the various military branches. Having looked at the article from the Independent, I'd have to say that, at least on the point of bases and numbers of men, the reporter is vague. He only really mentions the access to 50 new bases and the current # of men in theatre. Given the overall tone of the article, one could be forgiven for thinking that we'll be basing possibly even more troops (especially if they think the PNAC people --ie neocons--are actually secretly planning to use these "bases" to establish an eventual invasion force for Iran) than currently are in Iraq. Still, the author doesn't really deal with the issues of numbers (probably b/c it wouldn't sufficiently bolster his apparent slant) enough to be overly concerned about such implications just yet. As such, it seems to me that the 135-50K (+/-) troops in Iraq would be spread out across 50-84 bases, rather than the current 35 or so.

True_Avery
06-15-2008, 08:12 PM
This war is the splitting image of Vietnam.

1) The government riles up its people to fear a certain group of people. (Communists / Terrorists)

2) Government invades while telling the people that the only way to stop this threat from spreading is to nip it in the bud there. (Vietnam / Middle-East)

3) The military realize they are fighting a group of people that cannot be challenged with force and tactics: A guerrilla war. Fighting against both armed civilians and insurgents. A gang war, to be more broad. The united states army is trying to fight a force the American Police have been fighting for over a hundred years. (Vietnam forest and cities / Iraq cities)

4) United states takes previous government out of power to place a puppet government in controlled by the United states. (Cold War / War on Terror)

Wanna know what this is leading to? This is leading to all these years of "fighting" to end up with nothing in the end. Two things are going to happen:

Iraq will split into two like Korea, effectively causing more turmoil considering how unstable the middle east is right now.
or
The second we leave Iraq, the previous government will take over again and we will have achieved absolutely nothing in the end.

Just like Vietnam.

The only way we'll keep iraq from going back to its previous ways is to occupy it. Indefinitely. This seems to be Bush's plan, and if he is to achieve his goal of peace in the middle east... that is his only way.

But, this time, we might end up with enough oil to let our cars stay on the road for about 5 years. You can only play the oil game for so long, and if this war is any indication... we are about to hit a very, very dangerous point in our history when we realize our most precious resource is disappearing. What do humans do in that situation? Well... war. Love your peace as it is now, I think the world is about to get a lot more violent in the next 50 years.

Web Rider
06-15-2008, 08:21 PM
Wanna know what this is leading to? This is leading to all these years of "fighting" to end up with nothing in the end. Two things are going to happen:

Iraq will split into two like Korea, effectively causing more turmoil considering how unstable the middle east is right now.
or
The second we leave Iraq, the previous government will take over again and we will have achieved absolutely nothing in the end.

I LOVE the Korea reference when talking about how Iraq is like Vietnam.

Korea got split in two because the Russian and American commanders on the ground didn't want their guys mingling 'cause they worried orders would get mixed up and so on. So they divided it in two, one for the Russians to rebuild, one for the Americans.

It was later that the really really weird leader of Korea kept buggin Stalin to "spread the glory of communism to their southern brothers" But Stalin, not really wanting to press the Americans, told China to help N Korea. China really didn't want to get involved either, but when US forces pushed the N Koreans a little into China, China stepped in.

It is actually an American armed forces mistake(of going a little into China), that caused the Chinese army to REALLY aid N Korea and push back to what is now the dividing line.

Litofsky
06-15-2008, 08:45 PM
This war is the splitting image of Vietnam.

1) The government riles up its people to fear a certain group of people. (Communists / Terrorists)

2) Government invades while telling the people that the only way to stop this threat from spreading is to nip it in the bud there. (Vietnam / Middle-East)

3) The military realize they are fighting a group of people that cannot be challenged with force and tactics: A guerrilla war. Fighting against both armed civilians and insurgents. A gang war, to be more broad. The united states army is trying to fight a force the American Police have been fighting for over a hundred years. (Vietnam forest and cities / Iraq cities)

4) United states takes previous government out of power to place a puppet government in controlled by the United states. (Cold War / War on Terror)

Yes, this War is almost exactly like Vietnam. However, you might notice that the Society in which it takes place (America, to be exact) is incredibly apathetic, and doesn't seem to care what its leaders are doing (besides the few protests, that sprout up once in a while).

Wanna know what this is leading to? This is leading to all these years of "fighting" to end up with nothing in the end. Two things are going to happen:

Iraq will split into two like Korea, effectively causing more turmoil considering how unstable the middle east is right now.
or
The second we leave Iraq, the previous government will take over again and we will have achieved absolutely nothing in the end.

Just like Vietnam.

Yeah. We're in the same quagmire that we were in half-a-century ago, except this time, we're not protesting very often. If I were in charge of the citizens today, I would have overrun the White House long ago. That might not be the perfect tactic, but I'd like to see Bush's response to a non-apathetic society. :p

The only way we'll keep Iraq from going back to its previous ways is to occupy it. Indefinitely. This seems to be Bush's plan, and if he is to achieve his goal of peace in the middle east... that is his only way.

But, this time, we might end up with enough oil to let our cars stay on the road for about 5 years. You can only play the oil game for so long, and if this war is any indication... we are about to hit a very, very dangerous point in our history when we realize our most precious resource is disappearing. What do humans do in that situation? Well... war. Love your peace as it is now, I think the world is about to get a lot more violent in the next 50 years.

When our resources start to run out (as they are doing now), I predict one of two things will happen.

1) The Earth, having already adopted 'Green Technology,' will be able to handle the trade-off from oil to renewable energy much easier. We won't have massive panics, and oil will become a thing of the past. We won't have the massive war that will come with the alternative.

...or...

2) War. It's almost a scenario like Red Storm Rising, except global. When the oil runs out, the situation on the planet will intensify to the point where oil will be the driving point of Humanity. Eventually, we'll be forced into war for this commodity, and, having consumed it all, we will either become extinct or adapt (very, very quickly).

Achilles
06-16-2008, 12:14 AM
We're in the same quagmire that we were in half-a-century ago, except this time, we're not protesting very often.There aren't as many protests this time because the perceived justification for our involvement is very different.

While it appears that we did not learn to temper our hubris, we did at least learn how to frame the issue in such a way as to minimize dissent.
“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
-Hermann Goering, second in command of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler's designated successor.

Nedak
06-16-2008, 12:37 AM
We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them?

No, it just shows how we have to control everything.

Do you see any other countries with bases in the US?

Arcesious
06-16-2008, 01:15 AM
Indeed. I just checked, and apparently...

http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html

/here comes WWIII

Achilles
06-16-2008, 01:32 AM
Great find, Arcesious.

Maps only tell you part of the story though. History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events) helps to flesh out some of what maps alone cannot.

Totenkopf
06-16-2008, 02:07 AM
Indeed. I just checked, and apparently...

http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html

/here comes WWIII

I was talking to my uncle the other night and he (was both in the military and the civ side of the govt) said that the US had over 1000 bases (including "secret installations") spread around the world.

Web Rider
06-16-2008, 03:30 AM
Great find, Arcesious.

Maps only tell you part of the story though. History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events) helps to flesh out some of what maps alone cannot.

exactly, many of these bases were established in major wars for countries that could not protect themselves and were allies, or countries that were vital points in waging war. After the war, many war-ravaged countries needed the US to stick around to help them rebuild and keep control(for good or ill), it is a more recent development that countries have started to object to a US presence.

Partly because we're often forcing ourselves on them and/or limiting them, and also because many of the people new protesting are of newer generations with, to be blunt, short memories regarding why those bases came to be, some *coughKoreacough* just stem from racism.

Jae Onasi
06-16-2008, 08:43 AM
Indeed. I just checked, and apparently...

http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html

/here comes WWIII

I'd like to point out that US Consulates (or the contingent of soldiers attached to them) are referred to as 'installations'. My brother-in-law was in the installation that was attached to the US Consulate in Germany. So it's hardly surprising that we have 'installations' all over the world.

Arcesious
06-16-2008, 11:48 AM
It's interesting when you take note as to what countries are not occupied at all by the USA, and which ones are... Notice how africa is untouched, and that the US has a long line of countries surrounding asian countries like Russia and China, and surrounding Eastern Europe, from the south, all the way to the Eastern seaboard of Asia... It's a 'boxing-in' tactical formation of bases and US forces...

ForeverNight
06-16-2008, 12:23 PM
It's also pretty interesting when you take note of those nations that are 'friendly' to us.

Most of those installations, are in areas that don't want to kill us all. With the exception being the Installations in the Middle East... however, I think most of those are in friendly countries.

So, we are 'boxing in' who? China? N. Korea? Africa? Brazil? Argentina? Chile? Russia? And a whole lot of other countries I'm not up to listing.

(Yes, I'm aware that Africa is a continent, but I didn't want to list all the countries in Africa.)

Also, it says on there that the "United States has over 730 military installations and bases in over 50 countries." Frankly, I'd be worried if the number was less.

The US seems to be taking on a larger role (Or, rather, trying) in the World. So, if we were trying to break in, we'd want a stronger military presence in the world. And, more military presence in the world means that we need more installations in the world.

Does that make any sense?

Arcesious
06-16-2008, 12:28 PM
As I see it, the US has been slowly mobilizing its forces, for quite awhile... We don't have any bases in Russia and China because we do't want to make the leaders of those countries more mad than they already are at us...

ForeverNight
06-16-2008, 12:43 PM
So, your view of this is that the US is poised for total take-over of the world?

No leader in a Democratic society would do something like that. Mainly because of how he, or she, would be treated come election year.

Also, the sheer cost involved in a task such as this is enormous. Not only the monetary cost, but the cost in lives and resources.

Have you ever played Civilization? In the game you control a government and grow it from a single city in 4000 BC. From there you go until 2050 AD and you do with your 'empire' as you will.

It also really makes you appreciate how low the body count for Iraq is. There's been, what? 4099 total casualties(1)? Over a period of ~4/5 years.

Source (http://antiwar.com/casualties/)

That's amazing! Since we're fighting an enemy that has access to close to modern weaponry and, according to people I've heard talk about why we should get out, training that is on par with our own.

So, in a 'war' since it is no longer a war, but an occupation, we've taken 4099 casualties in the course of almost 5 years.

On D-Day, however, there were 2500 dead, almost half of what we've taken in the course of this 'war'. Amazing how perception changes!

source (http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm)

Well, I've gone overboard on trying to answer your question, but I hope I've done it.

1=Use of the word casualties in this case refers to total dead, not dead, wounded, and MIA's.

Arcesious
06-16-2008, 01:13 PM
I never said that the mobilization was a slow moving plan to take over the world... I'm saying that, in the event that something triggers a WWIII, The US has accomplished a very strong, fortified position in the world, which it can use to its advantage if needed. The US wants, as far as I know, is trying to turn the world all into a democracy, free market, and such. And in the case of soem Asian countries, it should be noted that not all of them give as much freedom to the people as the US does. The presence of these bases everywhere can be used for an Invasion, Assault, or to enforce democracy. As the map I linked says, a lot fo these bases seem to have more of a political purpose than a military one at the moment... The political purpose working like this in a diplomacy effort in the case of avoiding war:

USA: "We've got tons of military forces surrounding you, and if you don't do what we say, we will use them."

Of course, such a diplomatic strategy doesn't usually work very well for keeping peace...

Achilles
06-16-2008, 01:33 PM
It's also pretty interesting when you take note of those nations that are 'friendly' to us. Some of them are 'friendly' because they've already been conquered by us. :)

So, we are 'boxing in' who? China? N. Korea? Africa? Brazil? Argentina? Chile? Russia? And a whole lot of other countries I'm not up to listing.The location of our installations does provide some measure of tactical advantage, no? Do you think that all of the countries that you listed here (and some of the ones that you did not) are not cognizant of the fact that they are within immediate reach of the U.S military?

Also, it says on there that the "United States has over 730 military installations and bases in over 50 countries." Frankly, I'd be worried if the number was less.

The US seems to be taking on a larger role (Or, rather, trying) in the World. So, if we were trying to break in, we'd want a stronger military presence in the world. And, more military presence in the world means that we need more installations in the world.

Does that make any sense?Yes, it makes perfect sense within the context of imperialism.

So, your view of this is that the US is poised for total take-over of the world?

No leader in a Democratic society would do something like that. Mainly because of how he, or she, would be treated come election year. That isn't stopping us from trying.

Also, the sheer cost involved in a task such as this is enormous. Not only the monetary cost, but the cost in lives and resources. No doubt. Have you seen the condition of our armed forces and economy lately?

It also really makes you appreciate how low the body count for Iraq is. There's been, what? 4099 total casualties(1)? Over a period of ~4/5 years.

Source (http://antiwar.com/casualties/)

That's amazing! Since we're fighting an enemy that has access to close to modern weaponry and, according to people I've heard talk about why we should get out, training that is on par with our own.:dozey:

Jae Onasi
06-16-2008, 01:39 PM
It's interesting when you take note as to what countries are not occupied at all by the USA, and which ones are... Notice how africa is untouched, and that the US has a long line of countries surrounding asian countries like Russia and China, and surrounding Eastern Europe, from the south, all the way to the Eastern seaboard of Asia... It's a 'boxing-in' tactical formation of bases and US forces...

There's absolutely no surprise to that--it's a carry-over of the Cold War when a good chunk of Eastern Europe was either part of the Soviet Union or allied with the Soviets. Since Communism wasn't an issue in Africa, we have very little resources devoted there. It's not a boxing-in of the Middle East--it was a firewall against Communism and an attempt to slow down or stop the Sino-Soviet takeover of any more countries after WWII.

Achilles
06-16-2008, 01:45 PM
And now that the Cold War has been over for nearly 20 years?

ForeverNight
06-16-2008, 01:48 PM
Is the world automatically safe with the fall of the Soviet Union?

Achilles
06-16-2008, 01:57 PM
At what point did the world elect that it was our job to ensure the world's safety? Who protects the world from us?

JediMaster12
06-16-2008, 02:12 PM
Is the world automatically safe with the fall of the Soviet Union?
Safe from what? Communism?

The Soviet Union was a facist state. Communism is the idea that everyone has equal share in the land, resources, etc. I am oversimplifying it but I am no economist. We have our "genisus" in DC to thank for creating the big "Red Dog."

After the Cold War, the US needed some "Other" to use. This fell on the lot of the Arabs. The mujihadeen, the "Freedom Fighters" that the US financed in Afghanistan became the new target since they stayed not falling in line with US policy. I should note that jihad and mujihadeen have been misused by both sides. In Arabic jihad means struggle like struggling to succeed and mujihadeen means striver. With this new "other" the whole all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are terrorists start up.

Fascism occurs in all faces. Not necessarily the more infamous characters in history like Stalin and Hitler. If you think about it, we are under a capitalist facism. Economic interests have dictated US foreign policy for years. The only reason such a fuss is made now is that the US is trying to strut itself as the world power, which it is btw. Makes me wonder if anyone remembers that CHina holds most of our national deficit...

Jae Onasi
06-16-2008, 02:18 PM
And now that the Cold War has been over for nearly 20 years?I suspect paranoia/fear that Communism will become the rule again in Russia, and the fact that China is still Communist. The people currently in power grew up with Khrushchev banging his shoe on the desk and Brezhnev's arms race policies. A lot of us who grew up during that time think the threat is reduced, but certainly not gone. Russia may be a shadow of its former self, but it has a tremendous amount of resources available, and it should never be underestimated.

I'm not denying that the installations have current strategic importance for global activities, but I wanted people to understand the background on why those facilities were originally built where they are.

mur'phon
06-16-2008, 02:22 PM
The US wants, as far as I know, is to turn the world all into a democracy, free market, and such.

Only when it benefits itself, like every other country it has its own intrest in mind. If it really wanted to spread free marketism it wouldn't have defended it's subsidized agriculture so fiercly.

Forever Night: add the civilian deaths to your numbers, or is it only american lives that count?

That's amazing! Since we're fighting an enemy that has access to close to modern weaponry and, according to people I've heard talk about why we should get out, training that is on par with our own.

Shepherders, AK's, If that is equipment and training on par with U.S soldiers the world have little to fear

Who protects the world from us?

Mad Vlad, paranoid dragon, and comatose giant. Not that they are likely to do much as long as they are left alone.

Economic interests have dictated US foreign policy for years.

Like almost every country, the U.S looks after number one, and why shouldn't it? Its notlike anyone else are going to.

Web Rider
06-16-2008, 04:23 PM
At what point did the world elect that it was our job to ensure the world's safety? Who protects the world from us?

The world "elected" the US to do it when they didn't want the USSR or China doing it and Europe didn't give a darn to help out.

JediMaster12
06-16-2008, 04:24 PM
Like almost every country, the U.S looks after number one, and why shouldn't it? Its notlike anyone else are going to.
Ah but how far has it gone since our current economic colonization of Iraq is deemed illegal under international law, which is part in part a violation of the "supreme law of the land?"

mur'phon
06-16-2008, 04:30 PM
The "supreeme law of the land" is mainly a "sleeping" law, until someone enforces it it means little for states breaking it.

Totenkopf
06-16-2008, 05:10 PM
At what point did the world elect that it was our job to ensure the world's safety? Who protects the world from us?

Gee, I'm kinda hoping it's the UN. B/c if we were really serious about that kind of naked aggresion.....it'd be a cakewalk (in spite of Clinton's emaciation of the US military). :xp: :D Also, while the Cold War ended in the West's favor.......Russia is still as paranoid and cagey as ever.

@Mur'phon-who's the comatose giant? Mad Vlad would have been Russia, and the paranoid Dragon China (or were you merely speaking figuratively)?

mur'phon
06-16-2008, 05:18 PM
Sleeping giant= EU, an external threat would make it the superpower

Darth Xander
06-16-2008, 05:31 PM
I just want this to end before it get outs of hand :(

Totenkopf
06-16-2008, 05:33 PM
Easy enough....turn around and don't look back. :xp: ;)

Nedak
06-16-2008, 06:10 PM
exactly, many of these bases were established in major wars for countries that could not protect themselves and were allies, or countries that were vital points in waging war. After the war, many war-ravaged countries needed the US to stick around to help them rebuild and keep contro

Oh yeah, that's why we have bases in places that don't need any help? Germany for an example.

Nedak
06-16-2008, 06:19 PM
So, your view of this is that the US is poised for total take-over of the world?

No leader in a Democratic society would do something like that. Mainly because of how he, or she, would be treated come election year.


Sorry for the double-post but this topic so so active that my reply to this would probably be unseen.

It has happened many times before to other countries/empires, how could it not happen again?

And if you really think that the people have any say in elections, then you should think again.

If you didn't notice by the 2001 Elections anybody can get into office if they have enough power. Al Gore won the elections and STILL George Bush gets elected. Now tell me how that is a democracy. This country has changed drastically my friend. Think about it, do you really think that the most powerful country in the entire world could be run by just ANYBODY?

Which was a great system, has now turned into a corrupt agenda for money and power... like the Romans before us.

JediMaster12
06-16-2008, 06:54 PM
The "supreeme law of the land" is mainly a "sleeping" law, until someone enforces it it means little for states breaking it.
But it can be easily used against us should another nation decided to do to us what we are doing to Iraq (aka War of Agression). In a way it can be said that we had it coming to us since we think that we are above the law.

mur'phon
06-16-2008, 06:59 PM
JM12: In that case it's not in the U.S interest to do so. Leaders try to do what is in their own/their countrys interest (theese to often overlap), but they can't predict the future.

ForeverNight
06-16-2008, 10:13 PM
If you didn't notice by the 2001 Elections anybody can get into office if they have enough power. Al Gore won the elections and STILL George Bush gets elected. Now tell me how that is a democracy. This country has changed drastically my friend. Think about it, do you really think that the most powerful country in the entire world could be run by just ANYBODY?

WRONG. Gore did not win the election. He won the popular vote, but he did not win the election. Please, if you're going to say something like that, at least get it right!

It has happened many times before to other countries/empires, how could it not happen again?

Alright, lemme rephrase that. No democratically elected official that has a legislative branch will do something like that.

Why? The Official will have to look out for his/her next term, and the legislative branch would probably make points by speaking out very strongly against the war... such as was happening in the US during our invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

KinchyB
06-16-2008, 10:23 PM
Looks like I need to clarify my previous post...:xp:

A "base", the way the US military uses it for a permanent, staffed facility, typically has at least a brigade (1500-4000 troops) and associated support staff.

In post #60 you defined "base" differently...in your opinion, which definition do you believe to be more accurate? I'd be more willing to go with the definition in post #60 although admittedly it is wikipedia so it may not be 100% accurate. If you could provide a source for the alternate definition it would be appreciated. :)

If you look at the list of forts and bases that the various armed services have, they are all quite a bit bigger than the smaller facilities you listed above.

The list was actually taken from the source that was used in post #60. If you can offer an alternate definition I'd be more willing to go with that (distaste for wiki again, although it has been used a bit and may not be a bad launching point for finding information). Based on this comment I'm assuming you’re not 100% sold on the source previously used...?

In addition to the quote below...all the quotes stated above are related to this as well, but I didn't want to fill my post with duplicate quotes.

The use of the term 'base' or 'fort' in the US Military is more specific than the way the article writer appears to be using it.

An interesting read... (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20050527_2005BSR.pdf)directly from the DOD. This document is from September 30 2004, however, I'm only noting the terminology used in relation to the installation size. Also, this is a fair sized (1.8 Megs) document to open in a browser so please be aware (not sure anyone is on dial-up anymore but just in case :) ).

Bases:
Thule Air Base - 138 active military were assigned, 2 civilians, 0 "others"
Florennes Air Base - 7 active military were assigned, 0 civilians, 0 "others"
Karup Air Base - 4 active military were assigned, 0 civilians, 0 "others"

Forts: (only U.S. ones found in the document)
Fort Lesley J McNair - 913 active military were assigned, 580 civilians, 191 "others"
Fort Juan Muna (Guam) - 273 active military were assigned, 0 civilians, 0 "others"

Barracks:
Campbell Barracks - 1,304 active military were assigned, 462 civilians, 236 "others"
Barton Barracks - 126 active military were assigned, 130 civilians, 117 "others"

Garrisons:
US Army Garrison Selfridge - 154 active military were assigned, 65 civilians, 373 "others"

Given the sizes of the installations/bases/forts we could easily have another 50 bases in Iraq without a large ground presence. In fact with these numbers we would only need 200 active military personnel to run 50 air bases (Although completely unlikely)...or 18,650 personnel to have 50 Barracks...my guess is that we would be somewhere in the middle, maybe leaning towards 18,000.

Now, there are bases, forts, barracks, and garrisons with significantly more people attached to them, however, it would seem the number of people associated with them has no impact on how the installation is named, so the reporter referring to 50 bases in Iraq could actually be very accurate.

Interesting to note...we have approximately 38 medium to large foreign installations. A medium to large installation is defined using the installations Plant Replacement Value (PRV) "which is the cost to replace these facilities using today’s construction costs" (DOD - 3, Page 4 (in adobe) - Portfolio Summary)...Kind of harsh in a way, but maybe we are looking at the wrong information in regards to how they really define a base/fort/installation/etc. Like they say...It's all about the benjamins.

Nedak
06-17-2008, 12:59 AM
WRONG. Gore did not win the election. He won the popular vote, but he did not win the election. Please, if you're going to say something like that, at least get it right!
Of course he didn't win the election...look who is President...



such as was happening in the US during our invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq.

And that still went on...

I fail to see your point.

Totenkopf
06-17-2008, 01:17 AM
Of course he didn't win the election...look who is President....


Not sure why there's such a big issue on that point. It wasn't the first time that the electoral vote and the popular vote weren't on the same side.

Also, you need more than the vocal opposition of a minority number of congress (house & senate) for such protests to halt policy decisions.