Thread: The war in Iraq

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Whatever dude ... you knew exactly what I meant to write. But either way you're still wrong. It's apples and oranges. It ain't going to happen. You're crazier than I thought if you really think "IRAQ" will allow US bases to be in Iraq in 5 years much less 50. Prove that the plan all along has been to have bases permantly in Iraq.

GEN. ABIZAID: Sir, we've been in the Middle East more than 50 years. We've been in the Middle East ever since the -- however you would like to call the dependency upon oil has developed. And our forces have been there either as naval, air or land forces in one way or another for an awful long time. And once the British pulled out the Arabian gulf, it became more and more necessary for us to provide more and more force in the region.

I think it's very important that we understand what's happening in the region. It's a struggle between extremist on the one side and moderates on the other. And clearly it's in our national interest to help the moderates prevail.

That struggle will go on for a long time. But it doesn't need to go on at the current footprint that the United States of America has in the region provided we can stabilize Iraq; stabilize Afghanistan; give confidence to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that they can defeat the extremists on their own; and other nations: Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt.

This struggle that's taking place out there is, to a certain extent, driven by an increasingly shrinking world, the global economy, the global information revolution, etcetera. And I think that there is no doubt that there's a need for some presence in the region over time, primarily to help people help themselves through this period of extremist versus moderates, they give the moderates a chance to win.

To continue to deter Iran against a strategy of hegemony in the region.

And ultimately, it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else's depends upon.

And so as long as we are the United States of America, it's unfortunate but it's true that we've got to carry the burden of protecting that with our allies.

And our allies do a good job helping us.

So do we need 200,000 Americans in the Middle East for the next 20 years? No, but we've got to stabilize Iraq. We've got to stabilize Afghanistan. We need to maintain a presence that protects the small nations and ensures the continued stability of the region and the flow of those resources that are essential to our well-being.

DefenseNews.com - Abizaid Says U.S. May Want To Keep Bases in Iraq - 03/15/06 09:28

Congressional record:

Retrieve Pages

OK, let's assume you're right. Explain your opinion with something other than generalities. What will the bases be ? Air Force ? Army ? Naval bases ?

We've stayed in Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany because they want us there. They don't want to spend the money on a military and we all know it has benefited them economically.

How many years were we in the Philippines ? Are still there ? Why not ? We had a relationship with PI even before any of the other countries mentioned. They decided they didn't want us there anymore and we left ... a beautiful base I might add. And I believe we would leave Japan if they wanted us to. We stay in Japan becasue they pay 70 % of the infrastructure. They even pay the Japanese MLC salaries.

As you know I support the war and GWB. But even I admit the Iraqi people are glad we liberated them but they want us out as soon as possible.

Bottom line ... we can't afford to stay there indefinitely and once Iraq is able to take over they are not going to want us to stay there. They will be more than happy to let us cruise the Persian Gulf in our ships. And none of the Muslim countries really gives a hoot about us having bases in their little escape paradise of Bahrain.

What bases do we have in Saudi Arabia ?

I don't think the day will ever come when a country like Syria, Iraq or Iran have the ability to land on US soil ... but if they did I can guarantee you there would be no media allowed to film atrocities or report civilian casualties.

Surasak,

I'm not sure that you aren't confusing terms. I'm not denying a need for a presence in the area ... I wrote that didn't I ? I've spent my entire naval career cruising the Persian Gulf ... spending 100s of days in that region sweating my ass off. We're always going to have US naval ships there until the oil dries up. The good general talks about" footprints" and that's more in line with what I've said than what you're talking about with bases. Bases are what we have in Japan and the other examples we talked about. There will be no bases other than a small support unit in the middle east (Bahrain) when the Iraq war ends. This is a cultural issue and the Muslim culture is not going to stand for a long term US presence there. It's no different the the Egyptians when Sadat ran off the British.

Thomas E. Ricks, who lived and spent 4 tours in Iraq has just released Fiasco. His interviews are very long and informative. He's pro-military, and pro-American foreign policy. You'll be hearing about his latest work a lot more.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Thomas E. Ricks, who lived and spent 4 tours in Iraq has just released Fiasco. His interviews are very long and informative. He's pro-military, and pro-American foreign policy. You'll be hearing about his latest work a lot more.

I might read it. There are starting to be more and more of these coming out. And you know as well as I do the opinions are very diverse. I saw a couple of these types of books this weekend at the library.

"Who needs Germany when we have Iraq?" asks Mr. Pike of GlobalSecurities.org.

Building bases in Iraq has risks. Two Americans beheaded last week were working as civil engineers constructing the Taji military base north of Baghdad, one of the bases Pike lists as "enduring."

The bigger risk: Polls find that at least 80 percent of Iraqis - whatever their views on the insurgency, democracy, the removal of Saddam Hussein, and other issues - want US armed forces to leave their nation. Making the bases permanent could stir up more opposition to the US occupation.

Another fear, however, is that without US bases, the various Iraqi factions - the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds - would fall into civil war. In turn, this conflict could drag in Iran, Syria, and Turkey, leading to a widespread conflict in the Middle East. Hope of establishing a democracy in an Arab nation would fade.

To avoid these risks, an Iraq government will accept a US military presence despite popular disapproval, Pike says. "An indefinite American presence in Iraq is the ultimate guarantor of some quasi-pluralistic government."

US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math | csmonitor.com

the other day a delusional bush opined about the "moment of opportunity" in the ME

Richard N. Haass, who was Bush's first-term State Department policy planning director and now leads the Council on Foreign Relations. And he apparently finds Bush's position laughable. Literally.
Peter Baker writes in the Washington Post that Haass "laughed at the president's public optimism. 'An opportunity?' Haass said with an incredulous tone. 'Lord, spare me. I don't laugh a lot. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?'

White House Briefing -- News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration

Ray I think you probably overlooked this little gem from your link!

I hear this amazing kind of editorial thought that says, all of a sudden Hezbollah has become violent because we're promoting democracy. They have been violent for a long period of time. Or Hamas. One reason why the Palestinians still suffer is because there are militants who refuse to accept a Palestinian state based upon democratic principles

Originally Posted by raycarey

the other day a delusional bush opined about the "moment of opportunity" in the ME

Richard N. Haass, who was Bush's first-term State Department policy planning director and now leads the Council on Foreign Relations. And he apparently finds Bush's position laughable. Literally.
Peter Baker writes in the Washington Post that Haass "laughed at the president's public optimism. 'An opportunity?' Haass said with an incredulous tone. 'Lord, spare me. I don't laugh a lot. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time. If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?'

White House Briefing -- News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration

I seem to remember an aircraft carrier, and Bush pictured beneath a banner saying "mission completed". But that was a different war, right? Or wasn't it?

Lookie lookie here ... Raycarey helps get me banned from ajarn and now he's over here.

There is nobody over there anymore to do anything other than echo the left wing liberal commie circle.

How's you're beloved "Quagmire" thread going ? It's the liberal circle jerk is what it is because everybody just agrees with what the group geek speak is.

stroller: I'm sorry but I'm gonna tell you straight up that you might as well ban me now because if this guy starts posting over here it's over. Just ban me ... don't give me any advice ... this guy is as fucked up as Hogan's goat.

Noone gets banned that easily, you'll have to put up with more friendly pms.

Originally Posted by stroller

Noone gets banned that easily, you'll have to put up with more friendly pms.

That's my point ... ray always has pms.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I seem to remember an aircraft carrier, and Bush pictured beneath a banner saying "mission completed". But that was a different war, right? Or wasn't it?

nope, same war....same war 'hero'.

Obama: Iraq war made US safer
28/08/2010

US President Barack Obama in a YouTube message on Friday thanked US troops back from Iraq for their "dedication" and "courage" that "has made America safer."

The US military has pulled tens of thousands of combat troops out of Iraq in recent months, with numbers now below 50,000, less than a third of the peak level in 2007, ahead of a complete pullout in December 2011.

"I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all the men and women who have served in Iraq and who are currently serving in Iraq,'' Obama said in the short video posted on the White House website.

"Your dedication, your bravery, your courage, has made America safer and has helped stand up democracy in Iraq.''

Obama will mark the end of US combat operations in Iraq on August 31 in a speech to be delivered from the Oval Office.

Some 50,000 US troops however will remain in the country, nominally as trainers, ahead of a full exit currently scheduled for December 2011.

The exit of the combat troops is a key milestone, as the remaining US force hands over the responsibility for security to the Iraqis and assumes a more advisory role.

It comes, however, as a spike in unrest over the past two months triggers concern that Iraqi forces are not yet ready to handle security on their own, and with no new government formed in Baghdad since a March 7 general election.

An Iraqi poll on Tuesday cast doubt on Obama's decision to pull out thousands more soldiers. More than half those questioned warned that the timing was wrong and that it would have negative consequences.

More than 4,400 US troops were killed and billions of dollars were spent ousting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003 and quelling the ensuing sectarian and Al-Qaeda violence that ripped the country apart.

bangkokpost.com

Nice to hear. But it certainly didn't make tourist Bali, Madrid or London safer.
Most certainly didn't make Iraq safer either.