Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

We are not building "permanent" bases in Iraq...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:32 AM
Original message
We are not building "permanent" bases in Iraq...
"Bush has publicly denied that the United States has permanent designs on Iraq, and on February 17, 2005, Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I can assure you that we have no intention at the present time of putting permanent bases in Iraq." For all the Bush administration has done to verbally dispel notions that it seeks permanent bases, it continues to plan and construct bases that are built to last, well, permanently.

Here's what we do know. In April of 2003, senior Bush administration officials told the New York Times that we were planning "a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the region." Nearly a year later, in March of 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported that the U.S. was constructing 14 "enduring bases." These long-term encampments were technically designated to house troops through 2006, but military officials were candid about their potential to serve as permanent bases. "Is this a swap for the Saudi bases? I don't know. ... When we talk about enduring bases here, we're talking about the present operation, not in terms of America's strategic global base," Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman told the Tribune. "But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense."

...

But to Gary Hart, it's simple: those who are against permanent bases should be against the continued construction of such bases. "Either you are leaving or you are not. If you are leaving you don't need fixed facilities. If you are not planning to leave, you convert trench latrines and tents into fabricated steel and pour concrete runways. One is removable and the other one is not. And it's pretty simple -- if you are pouring concrete runways and welding steel, you plan to be there for a while." "

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/23755/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. i'm sure the iraqis will appreciate the facilites when they kick the US
out in a couple years.

think of the schools and hospitals that could have been built with those resources. here and elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondThePale Donating Member (895 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. not to mention the Iranians!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingasm Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. Bush Bases
Of course we're staying there, Bush wants his name to be on that trophy for eternity. He'll polish it real good to show daddy he's a big boy now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. "enduring" bases ???
several months ago, i had a chance to sit down and speak with my Congressman, Jim McGovern ... he had just returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq ...

i asked him whether it was true that the US is building "permanent bases" in Iraq ...

he told me he had asked the exact same question of the two leading American Generals he met with ... their response was that the bases are not "permanent" bases; they're "enduring" bases ...

Congressman McGovern asked them to explain the difference ... they told him that the bases are "enduring" because, after the US no longer needs them, they will be returned to the Iraqis ...

how's that for marketing hype ???

the only good news here is that bush has so badly bungled the "liberation" effort that it may be impossible for the US to achieve the neo-cons' imperialistic objectives ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. "We have no ambition in Iraq"- right in the SOTU speech.
Bush stands for BULLSHIT.

That, I do know. As far as permanent bases, I'm ignorant. But why would this administration not want permanent bases? They want to rule the world. Permanently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. riverbends post on june 21
"the republic of the green zone" ya we are going to stay unless iran-iraq decides to throw us out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fluffdaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. We need a permanent military base in the middle east. If not Iraq..where?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Um, why?

Please explain the assumptions involved.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fluffdaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. A super power needs the ability to respond in all parts of the
world and to do that you need bases aka Boots on the ground in all parts of the world. Think Rome and the UK in their hey-day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Are we Rome or Victorian England?

Are we an empire? What's the point of it, what are the specific interests?

I don't think the U.S. is that. It's playing at it because too many Republicans read Gibbon and imagine they are living in England of that time period, but it's not a reality.

All this "need" talk is unwarranted and unwarrantable tautology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fluffdaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Are we an empire ?....No. But the World is Not a safe place.
There are people and countries wishing to do us and our allies harm.........If they can. And to stop them we needs military bases close to the hot spots of the world. There comes responsibilities with being the worlds good guys and a super power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lexingtonian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Name even one

that requires us to have bases in the Middle East.

There aren't any.

And if you're going to try to make the case for China, they've just managed to break the American containment effort targetting their oil supply routes. In Central Asia, with help of the Russians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrary1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I'm not so sure
we are considered the "good guys" by most of the world these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fluffdaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. But we are........ As a country as a people we mean to do the Right things
Edited on Thu Jul-28-05 06:04 PM by Fluffdaddy
But some times our leaders screw-up. Bush and his neocon puppet masters wasted a lot of the worlds good will towards us. We need to get our people back in power to handle overseas policy again. That's why 06 & 08 elections are so big for us.....We can't F-up and run people that can not win. I personaly feel the DLC is doing whats needs to be done to win in the soft red states
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. To protect OUR oil
...silly :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RadiDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. If we HAVE to have them (I don't agree we do) put them in Israel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
14. Word games can be fun.
But make bad policy and bad politics.

We had "permanent bases" in Sa'udi Arabia. And in the Philippines. We ceased occupying both. The bases were permanent in some limited sense, but obviously did not require permanent occupation by us. Note that I'm seeking a permanent job, but it's not like I intend to spend the next 18 billion years there, or the employer needs to guarantee that there'll be a job for me in the year 2346. Some words need a context.

The sense opposed to "permanent" in both cases is "temporary", which implies things like tents and easily dismantleable structures, when applied to bases, and an explicit agreement by me and the employer that the job will end Real Soon Now, when applied to a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
15. Fort Zinderneuf and Fort Apache only have to last 'til the oil's gone.
Nah, they're not PERMANENT. They only need to last for 112.5 Billion Barrels or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 20th 2017, 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC