What is Digg?16 Comments
- pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16ok, no permanent bases. they will leave when they are done. and i'm starting my diet tomorrow.
- Starman97, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is not a permanent base either.
It's leased from Cuba.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitmo - the6thReplicant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9But aren't we building the largest embassy in the world there?
Ciao - tjl2015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes, we are. This thing is larger than the Vatican:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm
Info on other locations:
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
Further Info:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
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. - ekleinunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes, 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.
http://tania.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20050613/018653.html - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Indeed.
The official story was that they were going in to disarm Saddam of WMDs.
When the invasion took place, places where there was radioactive material were ignored to the extent that humanitarian organizations are now spending a whole lot of energy trying to find and replace all the radioactive barrels that were plundered and are now used as, for instance, drinking water containers.
On the other hand, huge energy was expended surrounding the oil fields.
Here's a map showing the known oil reserves in the world:
http://policypete.com/images/map_proved_oil_375x254.gif
Here's map showing US international military bases:
http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/draft3.jpg
I'll believe they are leaving the day there are no American troops in Iraq. - Hellman109, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Exactly what I was thinking.
Whats the bet that they 'require' a thousand or so troops with all their military equipment and weapons to defend it. - SmokedL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@jellygraph
Please, at least do the 5 second check OK?
http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=iraq+radioactive+barrels&btnG=Google+Search
Nuclear facilities do not equal WMDs. OK? - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ SmokedL :
Ah, you must be from that alternate reality, where Bush isn't a dictator and Iraq actually did have radioactive material and stuff of WMD's.
How did you get here? We don't have the technology yet to jump between alternate realities. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We'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. - yankinlondon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ban permanent bases will they? We'll just build semi-permanent bases instead. Hah! That'll show 'em.
http://yankinlondon.blogspot.com/2006/09/in-for-long-haul_28.html - dtschwe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What 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) . - SlickNic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Buried for misleading/incorrect title.
"House Passes Ban on Permanent Iraq Bases"
"Congress is on the verge of barring the construction of permanent bases for U.S. forces in Iraq" - cakestick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So who are these 22 morons in the House that aren't getting re-elected?
Nothing surprises me anymore. - Nexxis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@SmokedL
Nice link. We should probably relax before we begin to give the rest of the world the wrong impression. lol
ooops, too late. - mjohnson2112, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Technically, 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?
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
