latimes.com — Congress is on the verge of barring the construction of permanent bases for U.S. forces in Iraq, a move aimed at quelling concerns in the Arab world that American forces will remain in the war-torn country indefinitely. The ban, which was inserted into the annual defense spending bill, won House approval Tuesday night with a vote of 394-22 for it.
Sep 27, 2006 View in Crawl 4
the6threplicantSep 28, 2006
But aren't we building the largest embassy in the world there? Ciao
ekleinuntSep 28, 2006
Yes, technically, in Dec 1903 it was an agreed and ratified 99 year lease. A 1934 treaty changed the lease agreement to a yearly payment with trading rights. However the US has long since stopped payment and trading rights since the Cuban Missile Crisis.The US is technically breaking international and (not to mention) its own laws with the illegal occupation. For the same reason(s) who would stop a (theoretically temporary) base from being occupied in Iraq for the next 103 years? Certainly not congress.<a class="user" href="http://tania.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20050613/018653.html">http://tania.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20050613/018653.html</a>
tjl2015Sep 28, 2006
Yes, we are. This thing is larger than the Vatican:<a class="user" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm</a>Info on other locations:<a class="user" href="http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm">http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm</a>Further Info:<a class="user" href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm</a>They won't admit it, but they're planning for the long haul. The bases, and our troops are there to what they were sent there to do: ensure a stable flow of oil. Not own it, not control it, just keep the stuff flowing. The politicians all like to talk about helping the people of Iraq, but that really means squat. Frankly, we can't solve Iraq's problems, not with the 150,000 troops we have, not with a million troops. It's one of those artificial nations created at the end of the colonial era, that frankly has no real reason to exist. The divisions and bad blood between the Kurds, the Shia and the Sunnis go back hundreds of years. No amount of military power can solve it. I think Iraq will probably dissolve into a three state solution, but I don't think our government really cares one way or the other. They'll just keep some moderate level of control, and ensure some Iranian-like revolution doesn't take place. As long as the oil flows, no one cares.
yankinlondonSep 28, 2006
Ban permanent bases will they? We'll just build semi-permanent bases instead. Hah! That'll show 'em.<a class="user" href="http://yankinlondon.blogspot.com/2006/09/in-for-long-haul_28.html">http://yankinlondon.blogspot.com/2006/09/in-for-long-haul_28.html</a>
Closed AccountSep 28, 2006
We're not building permanent bases there because theyd just be big fat mortar targets in the middle of an inusrgent hellhole. We can reach the middle east from bases in Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan and Diego Garcia without having to build more in Iraq.There was never a plan to build permanent bases there, this is just feel good legislation.
dtschweSep 29, 2006
What is the time frame for permanent? 50-100 years?Since they pass a "Defense" bill every year they will probably just amend a future one to nullify the parts of this bill which address permanent bases (quietly) .
mjohnson2112Sep 29, 2006
Technically, an Embassy isn't a base, even if it has a thousand marines guarding it. This ban is pretty much meaningless. It just means that any bases we set up won't have certain infrastructures, but therer is no way in hell we will ever have a complete withrdrawal from Iraq. It would defeat the only real strategic value of attacking it in the first place - being able to "reach out and touch" Syria and Iraq air/sea/land.Moreover, the administration has made it obvious that they will circumvent any law to do what they want via verbage. Who gets the final say on what "permanent" means?