Maliki opens door to permanent U.S. bases
By Steve Benen Sunday Nov 25, 2007 6:01pmFor years, talk of permanent bases was considered impolite for the political mainstream. When congressional Dems started taking the matter seriously, congressional Republicans quickly shut down any policy proposals that might limit a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.
With that in mind, today’s news is not at all encouraging.
Iraq’s government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.
The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.
As Spencer Ackerman explained, “Make no mistake: this is Nouri al-Maliki offering the U.S. a permanent presence in return for guaranteeing the security of his government…. In exchange for a platform for the indefinite projection of American power throughout the Middle East, the Bush Administration probably considers protection for Maliki and his coterie to be a small price to pay.”
Login or Register to post comments.
We all knew this was coming...
Sounds like someone got their BALLS twisted by bush and Co.
It's not a bad thing for the U.S. to have permanent bases in Iraq. We have permanent bases all over the world. It's part of being a superpower.
Spencer Ackerman is spot on, and there won't be many Democratic leaders upset by the idea.
Yes, we knew it was coming. Sixty years from now we will still be there as we are in Germany, Korea, Phillipines, and Japan. After al military has to look out for the corporate masters. That is a no brainer.
Lessons lost in history as to why Great Britian is no longer Great and now known as England.
curt @ 3:
No, it is part of the folly of not learning from history. BTW, when did your trailer get the internet?
curt, it is very bad. get a clue bro.
Yay! now everyone from my generation will have the opportunity to help Bush Co. steal Iraqi national resources.
curt @ 3:
Yer right. It's not bad.
It's HORRIBLE!
Remember 9/11/01? What's gonna happen in a few years, after we've got 19 or 20 bases in Iraq and everything seems calm and tranquil, will make you forget that anything happened on the afforementioned date.
The situation is nothin' like our bases in Germany and Japan, when they committed acts of war aginst us and wound up havin' to surrender unconditionally. Hell, many of the folks in those countries were happy to have protection from the autocrats in the Kremlin.
The situation we're faced with is much more like the one the French faced in Algeria. And the consequences of that war weren't very pleasant fer the French.
Well now we can merge the Carolinas and make Iraq a state and not have to change the flag. Gotta hand it to Bush, he always finds the dumbest possible option and goes with it.
Orwell said,
No war is ever fought, unless the moneyed classes see a dollar to be made, or a dollar lost if not fought....
This is all about Oil Wealth, and Dick Cheney's desire to be a billionaire.
War Profiteering at it's finest.
The fly in the ointment? The Iraqs will dispose of Maliki at some point down the road, and all the US investment will be lost.
But, not before billions have poured into Halliburton, Bectel, Blackwater, and all the oil companies....
Well, there yeah go...
This is like a cornered eight year old that has been caught in a lie. It just keeps getting worse and you have to wait until all of them are outed...
He already is one...
We'll get to that magic 58,000 US killed Vietnam number one way or another.
A Kucinich or a Paul administration would close it all down.
Vote for these men. Primaries are fast approaching. They'll be here before you know it.
The NeoCons invaded Iraq FOR permanent bases.
The Saud's wanted the U.S. out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
Note the date.
The Algerian War
This is one of worst foreign policy decisions in US history, right after the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Anyone who think this a good ideas is a fool and not a student of history, and apparently has been in a coma for last 17 years.
anyone remember nam and the puppet gov't we supported[set up] and subsequent changes of rulers when the vietnamese got fed up with the corruption and obvious control of their homeland by the u.s. how about madame thieu (sp) and the clampdown on the buddhists. iraq will trump that tenfold. history didn't take long to repeat itself......how ironic that it's being done by a nam war evader. jeeesh
It's all here!
Unlike past global powers, however, America has built an empire of bases rather than colonies, creating in the process a government that is obsessed with maintaining absolute military dominance over the world, Johnson claims. The Department of Defense currently lists 725 official U.S. military bases outside of the country and 969 within the 50 states (not to mention numerous secret bases). According to the author, these bases are proof that the "United States prefers to deal with other nations through the use or threat of force rather than negotiations, commerce, or cultural interaction."
BINGO!
We will fall, just as Rome and Britain did.
And, if you think Hillary Clinton will do anything about this, think again?
Between She or Rudy, nothing will stop the Military Industrial Complex.
It's America's biggest industry, and more and more people work for it.
We are toast.....
we're never gonna see us out of Iraq....not in my lifetime...we may see a large reduction...but considering that shrub and rummy went in without a large enough force...I expect a presence of 40-60 thousand....for decades.And when if flares up...well..you know.
Wow, what a surprise, the puppet president installed by American military might, wants the U.S. to remain.
Good dog. Here's a biscuit.
The biggest crime of all is redirecting those billions of dollars and tens of thousands of deaths are for securing a dead end future.
It would have been better for all of humanity if the money and man power had been spent on developing solar and wind power in America's own country. Fools!
brobob @ 19:
do you think that puppet governments are unique to everywhere in the world - EXCEPT the US? Read any of the works by Carroll Quigley (Pres Clintons mentor) and you would be amazed to learn that its happened here.
DaveM @ 18:
I generally agree but think your statement of the facts glosses over a bit. SHillary & the Zionist wing of the Demos (80% or so) are obviously on board with this plan. You'd think someone as smart as SHillary w/ a near-lock on the presidency would be a student of history, & I certainly wouldn't call her a fool, but they're full speed ahead on this Imperial Project.
I think that as Queen of Mean Leona Helmsley once proclaimed "Only the little people pay taxes", our ruling class feels that "Only the little people die in our imperial triumphs", while they make money hand over fist. Certainly their plan seems untenable in the long run, but they're so isolated from the rest of us they have few or no doubts. W/ the MSM spinning for them & most Americans too cynical or overworked to rise up & end this war (even tho' 70% now recognize its failure & want out) expect our rulers to drag this on for years.
mudshark @ 21:
you would if you did something completely unexpected by the ruling elites...
choose Ron Paul or Kucinich.
make the ruling elite make an overt move like they did with Kennedy.
this was predictable, of course.
But the Maliki puppet govt has yet to supply the keystone for the invasion & conquest of Iraq: the Iraq Oil Law, which delivers to Anglo/US energy corporations about 70% interests in Iraq's oil production for the next 20 year. Saddam and his govt had signed concessions with a lot of folks who weren't allied with Standard Oil or BP (e.g.). And he threatened to trade in Euros. He had to go. The new "Oil Law," which has been held up in the Iraqi Parliament for many months, and the terms of which are those which made the likes of Wolfowitz say the war would finance itself, is the litmus test for any Iraqi 'leader' proposing to sell the country for security.
Along with the permanent bases and the dissolution--by hanging--of the threat against Israel posed by Saddam, the oil law is the last piece of the Bush Cabal's reason for going into Iraq in the first place. Without it, the rest turns to ashes in their mouths.
So Maliki MUST deliver the Oil Law or lose the Bush cabal's patronage.
I STILL think Ahmad "Judy, Judy, Judy" Chalabi may be the final guy who ends up as the approved "authoritarian leader" of Iraq.
TRENT LOTT GAY SEX SCANDAL!!!
http://perezhilton.com/?p=9452
IS THIS TRUE???
You can see a film all about this, produced by Alternate Focus, called THE BASES ARE LOADED. It's online here:
http://alternate-focus.blip.tv/file/274043/
brobob @ 19:
The coup in '63 got rid of Diem. He and his family(his brother, Nhu, was head of the secret police- and I believe it's Nhu's wife to whom yer referrin') were Roman Catholic. They were the people crackin' down on the Buddhists.
Nguyen Van Thieu was the President of South Vietnam at the end of the war. Between Diem and Thieu were a series of governments, mostly, iirc, military juntas and dictatorships.
"In exchange for a platform for the indefinite projection of American power throughout the Middle East, the Bush Administration probably considers protection for Maliki and his coterie to be a small price"
um, let me fix this...
"In exchange for about 1000 oil platforms for the indefinite future and the projection of American power throughout the Middle East, the Bush Administration probably considers protection for Maliki and his coterie to be a small price, especially since they have absloutely no skin in this game.
yeah...
that's better...
Maliki's Offer Is Bush's Unlimited Warmonger's Call
Sometimes I think Bush must think everyone in America is dump. This so called request for security is nothing more then "end around" to unlimited war in Iraq.
So we do agree to be Mailiki's knight in shinning armor. Does that not make us responsive to any and all perceived or real threat to Iraq? Can you guess what Bush's next reason will be to keep the war going in Iraq? This reason, protecting an ally, has staying appeal. It gives Bush an unlimited format to intimidate, invade, and dominate the whole region in the name of protecting their ally. We need only look at Israel for a present day example for such move.
Now is the time to tell Bush this "ally" ploy will not work. Contact your representative and tell them, if they don't already know, not to accept "wooden nickels" designed to promote warmongering.
Joseph
Can we call one of the "permanent" bases "Dien Bien Phu"?
And Maliki won't turn into another Saddam because...?
They've been building towards this all along - that embassy in Baghdad is testament to that...
Maliki opens door to permanent U.S. bases
It beats assasination.
Who amongst us wiser ones, didn't know this already?
MarktheSpark @ 24:
This has very, very, very little to do with Israel. If there was no oil in the Middle East we wouldn't be in Iraq. Supportin' Israel? Mebbe...But it wouldn't need much support 'cause its neighbors wouldn't be able to wage war against it. They could't weave enough rugs to buy an old Sherman tank.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was always about the oil and establishing a permanent American military footprint in the middle east. Take the time to actually read the PNAC documents. The neocons dream of a 21st century dominated by a North American Empire. Sorry if that's a disappointment to the Zionist conspiracy theorists.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/26/182929/47
........fuck... just fuck... and for the ninnies who think this is a good idea just because of what went down post WWII... Slight problem.. the American dollar and our standard of living is tanking... Running the imperial power game takes money as well and lives... We may still have a generation or two of lives to squander in this sick way.. but we are fast running out of money... This shit ain't gonna work out... It just ain't.... JD
And Maliki will get deposed for this move - just wait and see how quickly Bush's "puppet" will be overthrown.
curt @ 3:
You really think we are still a "super power"? When people fought with air, sea, and ground power only...yes we were. But the new enemy doesn't give a shit if they die or not or who dies with them. That minimizes any army. Read your history. These little militias are pretty powerful and dug in like an Alabama tic. If we decided to Nuke an entire country to gain our objective, yes, we are a "super power". But the world community would not stand for that. IF we were still a "super power", We would have Spec Ops and and 10,000 troops in Iraq only.
Puppet may be in big trouble with this one, no matter what the Puppeteer makes him say...
no i'm not surprised at all...this regime IS a puppet gov't. the fact that we "spread" democracy and "guarantee" elections elsewhere in the world is a joke. while here the voice of the people, voting, and constitutional rights are trampled. and the criminal corp that is feeding off of this war-haliburton- moves to dubai where they can remain in control and outside of any prosecution for their crimes. just the tip of an iceberg. the party system here is a joke...we all know who they represent...not us. kudos to blue dems and these blogs for trying to get us to support "our" candidates. but do we really think that will happen- that our candidates will change the system? look at how responses here denigrate kucinich and make him out to be a joke. he is the only one DOING something now...when it counts. the rest- talk talk talk meanwhile our rights are stripped. there is no habius corpus wtf yea i am amazed! when will we wake the f**k up and take back our country?
Greg @ 42:
If we were a true "super power" we'd have to be energy-independent first. And we'd have no need fer Iraq. Or Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.
Truth Be Told @ 25:
Care to give me a few reasons why I should consider Ron Paul.......and please give me more than one or two reasons....I like DK....but I want to know why you would bring up Paul....
J @ 27:
If Perez Hilton is reporting it, it must be true. I'll kiss your left nut if it turns out to be true.
i'm just waiting for the "secret bombing" of cambodia --incursions into iran to get the whole thing going.
mudshark @ 46:
I wanna know why it's Paul first, Kucinich second. I could speculate, but I think I know the answer.
"I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting, . . . The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence, to my knowledge."
--Donald Rumsfeld, April 21, 2003.
KAREN HUGHES [Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs] : We want nothing more than to bring our men and women in uniform home. As soon as possible, but not before they finish the job. CHARLIE ROSE: And do not want to keep bases there? KAREN HUGHES: No, we want to bring our people home as soon as possible."
--"Charlie Rose Show," Dec. 8, 2005
"Charlie, we're not in the process these days of doing permanent bases anywhere. . . . It isn't a limitless commitment."
--Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, "Charlie Rose Show," May 7, 2007.
No surprise here, the man has caved everytime we put pressure on him - the sad part is, he thinks this will help him keep his job longer...
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
--Project For a New American Century (William Kristol, Elliott Abrams, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle et al.), "Rebuilding America's Defenses, Sept. 2000, p. 14.
Andy K @ 49:
yeah....the truth hurts...don't it?
Andy K @ 45:
Excellent point. You think we would have learned that lesson back in the 70's and 80's. Now we have to kiss the ass of our enemy. We've been doing that since Ronnie Raygun.
Media Concepts @ 50:
"...it’s never been discussed in my presence, to my knowledge.”
Wow. The prequel to the DoJ hearins "I don't remember" and "I don't recall" talkin' points.
mudshark @ 53:
my bad....the truth be told...I thought this was the truth hurts.....two different people......?
OK .
So Maliki is now the official Puppet . That must have cost $1 billion in American Tax payers money . At least its better than Chabali. Actually both now hav big fat Swiss bank accounts and live in Switzerland.
Andy K @ 9:
very well said!
Ah, the real Mission Accomplished.
Greg @ 42:
Besides, every occupation of another country has always failed. It's called home field advantage and lasting power. Sooner or later the occupiers get tired and go home.
Andy K @ 37:
For someone who's familiar with history like you seem to profess, I'm quiet surprised that you're making these rather uninformed statements (to put it mildly).
1. Israel wouldn't have existed if it weren't for the financial injections it receives from the U.S..
2. You seem to think that the wealth in the Middle East is mostly due to oil and that Israel's security is somehow related to the wealth of its neighbors. You fail to realize two things:
A) Most of the oil is located in the Gulf Region and those are the regions that have no territorial disputes with Israel. Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians do. None of them have any oil. But the scales are tilted against them because Israel has a superpower backing it.
I think you know which one.
B) Way before oil was discovered, the Middle East and namely the Muslim Empire spanned the globe from Spain all the way to China. They didn't get there selling oil, but rather through trade.
-----------------
Now, if you really want to learn something about Israel's relationship with the U.S. consider the fact that the U.S. needed Israel as an ally during the Cold War. Israel was more than happy to receive aid in return for its friendship. It's kind of like the same relationship between Maliki and the U.S. government.
When the Cold War ended, however, Israel continued receiving aid and support from the U.S., because by then, the mechanisms that helped maintain that partnership were already in place (think lobby groups). As a result, it was easier to maintain that marriage of convenience than sever the ties.
Greg @ 47:
tabloid bullshit.........consider the source.
They've had this planned out for years before we invaded Iraq. All they needed was an excuse.
Greg @ 54:
I don't think we'll see it until about 2/3 of the populace see the crisi fer what it is. The Great Depression opened our minds to hydro-electric power, WWII to nuclear power, but the energy independence angle was secondary to the works projects in the first case and the weapons project in the second.
I see, today, a tie-in between energy independence and nationalized, single payer healthcare. That connection is the opposition to both by entrenched corporate interests. Until we reach a crisis it's easy fer those corporate interests to divide opinion. What I fear the most is that the crises that would push us in the right direction would be cataclysmic.
"When congressional Dems started taking the matter seriously, congressional Republicans quickly shut down any policy proposals that might limit a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq." -- SB
No, Steve, you have that wrong. Bush HAS SIGNED law banning permanent airbases SIX TIMES, although the limits have been in budget bills, which have expired.
The House passed HR 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq, which is TMK now locked down in the SENATE, in Foreign Relations Committee (under Chairman Biden).
The bill passed the House by 399-24, which is quite a few House R (on the other hand, they probably just presumed they would tie it up in the Senate).
http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0066
Of course, it is a fait accompli. More stuff to be filed under Barn Door, Closing After Cow Escapes.
I forgot to mention that your statement, "They could’t weave enough rugs to buy an old Sherman tank" reeks of racism. Nicely done. Next time, just call them sand n**ers or towelheads.
Save Our Troops @ 15:
If you think either man can directly oppose the MIC, you are living in fairie land.
I think the real iraqis will have something to say about this, seems like they have been doing a better job of defending their turf than anyone thought. I think they have a taste of resistance now and see their future in it.
I expect the violence in Iraq to escalate.As soon as the Sunni's figure out they've been had.You know...the ones that are on the payroll.
Gregg @ 68:
The permanent bases are impregnable by ground forces.
Well, I want to remind everyone here to remain so pissed off about this that they seek JUSTICE for these crimes -- rather than play at being pissed off in order to bash the Democrats. These are Bush's crimes, and he and his fellow co-conspirators will pay.
McDuff @ 61:
Yes, Islam was made great by trade. And when the Portugese discovered the sea route around Africa, the economy of Islam took the slow, steady dive into the crapper. It took oil to revive the economies of the Middle East.
And that oil has peaked in most of the region. Iran may be the only of those nations that hasn't reached peak production yet...but it's only a matter of what: decades or years? before that happens.
And, iirc, Israel was a client state of France until the early '70's. It took Soviet involvement with Egypt and Syria for us to ramp up our relationship with Israel. And all along we've been allied with Saudi Arabia, whose princes tend to donate a lot of money to anti-Israeli causes. Frankly, it's a big clusterfuck.
Hey, the U.S. propping up another dictator in exchange for oil/money/power. Gee, no precedent for that in history...
Guess what will happen if the Iraqis elect a government that want the US out...
Nothing.
It should also be remembered that the top three Democratic candidates would not commit to removing all U.S. troops by the end of their term [2013] which is simply more evidence that there is little difference between the major war making parties in this country, i.e. the Democrats and the Republicans
Not Required @ 72:
doing the same thing over and over..and expecting a different result.
Not a bad deal. Maliki acknowledges Iraq as American colony forever in exchange for being Shah of Iraq. Not that he had much choice. bushco gets to legitimize the exploitation of Iraq and we foot the bill for the next 100 years.
Its sorta like getting mugged, and the robber pulling all your teeth as well..to make a necklace.
maliki is doing what bush hired him to do.
Am I missing something? We want to keep America strong and healthy, right? We want to promote our values, right? Considering how the Iraqis lived under Sadam, it seems like a win-win situation. Look, throughout history, no power stays dominant forever. This just helps ensure our wealth and success farther into the future, and, on balance, we bring better lives to the world, don't we?
Greg @ 42:
Did you tell the Soviets that when they went into Afghanistan? The USA is outdoing the old USSR in terms of the mistake department, and we're gonna suffer twice the karmic payback...
ted @ 78:
From the Department of Short Answers: No, on balance i think int cannot be said that USer influence in the world has been beneficial to those outside the US touched by it. Not as observed by that maven of introductory Anthro courses, the interstellar Ethnographer, who would note that the US has SELDOM been "at peace" throught the trajectory of its nearly 240 years of "peacefull coexistence."
Erroll @ 74:
All that really shows is that they will not hand their heads to the Republican executioners during a campaign.
Leftists continue to pretend that campaigning for office is the same thing as telling the truth about all issues. It's like leftists think that fairie dust is REALLY gold.
ted @ 78 "Am I missing something?"
Yes, you are clearly lacking any sense of morality.
"We want to keep America strong and healthy, right?"
Which Bush has directly opposed, by bankrupting the treasury.
"We want to promote our values, right?"
We have killed over a million Iraqis, and destroyed most of their culture. That's Nazi values, not "our values."
"Considering how the Iraqis lived under Sadam,"
Whom the US CIA installed.
H'yeah, GENOCIDE for oil and military profits is just SUPER!
Hope you love the blowback, you racist pig.
McDuff @ 61:
The Middle East under Islam also happened to dominate the territories it did because it picked a *really good time* to attack the two powers of the day, Byzantium and Sassanid Persia (aka Iran). A few more years of delay, and Byzantium would've squished the Arabs like a little bug, and then gone back to another war with Persia, uncaring of the "barbarian hordes" crushed. What actually happened was the successors to Muhammad at the time, the Rashidun, slammed into vulnerable Byzantine territories after the empire had just suffered war and plague. Then, the Umayyads took over Persia, and the rest was history.
And, ironically, Islam didn't spread by the sword. It spread on a Christian-like pattern of the top accepting it, in order to gain power under the new regime, and then the poor commoners bought into it. Which, needless to say wouldn't have happened to begin with had the Rashiduns and Umayyads not picked a good time to hit two great empires.
Ain't history grand?
General_Rennenkampf @ 83:
If the Maliki government survives through 2010 (the Iraq constitutional mandate) it will be interesting to see how well the Maliki/Dawa Party fair in open elections.
While we're on about history, perhaps we should look into the Magic 8 Ball(tm) to see what the past might say about Iraq's future.
Q: Will Maliki be re-elected?
A: Very doubtful.
Q: Will anybody *ever* be re-elected in Iraq?
A: My sources say no.
Q: Will Maliki survive to the end of his term?
A: Outlook not so good.
Q: Are US bases in Iraq dependant on a democratic Iraq?
A: Don't count on it.
Q: Are US bases in Iraq dependent on exploitable supplies of oil in Iraq?
A: Signs point to yes.
Q: Is what happened in Iran after US lackey/co-dependent The Shah(tm) was deposed likely to happen Iraq soon?
A: It is certain.
Q: Yikes! Well then, since the Saudis who were so pissed off at us for having bases in their country decided to kill 3000 Americans to show their displeasure, what can we expect from the Iraqis?
A: Concentrate and ask again.
Q: OK, then shouldn't we get the f*ck out of there and just buy their damn oil on the open market?
A: As I see it, yes.
The Magic 8 Ball(tm) knows all!
These thugs should ask the American people what they want. They forced us into a war for the profit of the military industrial complex and oil companies and stole two elections to put their chief thug in the the corner office and now they are forcing us to be in a country that does not want us and with a majority that does not agree with the policies of the crime family. Someone please remind me why Dubya the drunk is still in office.
Your Conscience @ 5:
Actually, failing to keep their colonial outposts is what killed off great empire of the brits. May not be the best example if you want say we are better off leaving completely.
But to me there is still a difference between a leased base in operation, and running/policing the whole damn country for them. We have bases in Britain and Australia too (and I'm sure more places), but you don't see doing their door to door investigations for them.
Whatever they say, Maliki, the Kurds, the Sunni, whoever (except Iranian agents and El Queso) WANT us to have bases there. It is the only deterrent to keeping the Iranians from seizing the oil fields and simply exterminating all the Kurds. I'm not saying we SHOULD stay, just that there are actually sound reasons on that side of the argument.
Your example falls down in another area as well. Keeping bases in Germany and Japan worked out REALLY damn well for all involved. No more German offensive every 10 years. Imperial Japan stopped raiding the mainland and turned to commerce. America spend a TON of cash rebuilding and maintaining bases, but we've made it back by now. Iraq is NOT Germany nor Japan after WWII. But your example implied that this was a bad thing, and I don't think it is.
iswaskasinca @ 87 "Someone please remind me why Dubya the drunk is still in office."
Because the RNC is demonstrably a criminal organization involved in racketeering, warcrimes, treason, and every kind of fraud and intimidation imaginable.
So now that the boots are on the crude, how will anyone be able to sustain a withdrawal argument anywhere near the halls of power. It is now by chimpy logic our national interest to lie our way into controlling the second largest oil reserve in the face of growing demand pressures from India China et al. And this way we don't even have to care about the faultering $$.
We pay, Richistan profits. We have been had. Be pissed.
General_Rennenkampf @ 83:
Geez, and we haven't even gotten to the Persian-ised Sejuq Turks, and their replacements in Anatolia, the Osmanli Turks. And though the Osmanli Turks were related to the Seljuqs, their empire looked a hell of a lot like the Romans/Byzantines they replaced, down to the Slavic harem slaves who motherd the Osmanli Sultans.
Okay, way off on a tangent now, but don't the present day Turks remind ya of Suleiman the Magnificent, the way they're tryin', hopelessly, to join the EU?
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 88 "Whatever they say, Maliki, the Kurds, the Sunni, whoever (except Iranian agents and El Queso) WANT us to have bases there."
What utter nonsense. Please stay and kill my grandmother and my children. The Kurds do not have any desire for Iraq to be dismantled and replaced by a US territory. They prefer a loose Iraqi federation without bearing the brunt of US war with Iran, invasions by Turkey, and the eventual elimination of the Kurdish access to Kirkuk.
The Kurds will, however, along with Sunni and Shia, play for time against the Americans, without outright opposing (and getting decapitated).
"It is the only deterrent to keeping the Iranians from seizing the oil fields and simply exterminating all the Kurds."
The suggestion that Iranians harbor such genocidal intentions is COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED.
Paul in LA-
I'm not so sure the Kurds don't want us there. They need a forceful presence in the region to keep their trade routes open. Most of the oil in Iraq is in semi-autonomous(or do they have full autonomy now?) and land-locked Kurdistan.
OBL wants us there, too, if only for the short term. Our presence there steers a lot of recruits towards him. He kicks us out, then he goes after the House of Saud and all of the other royals- or at least the royals he sees as less than purely Islamic- and installs one very large Sunni theocratic republic in the region.
Hold the fuck up. Didn't Maliki say he wanted the US out of Iraq a few months ago? I see it now, Iraq will be the jumping off point to start wars with the Middle East countries.
This is worse. More blood from our finest to protect Israel.
brobob @ 19:
Nice call. I have been waiting to say this ..... game, set, match, .... Vietnam. This entire fiasco made zero sense unless we planned to remain in Iraq. I feel like I was part of losing the Vietnam war twice. My brethren and I were not able to secure a victory, something the American public fully expected. There was one gleam for reconciling this. We (at least) demonstrated the futility of neo-colonial wars; how you get in them, and how hard it is to get out. It appears we were not even successful in conveying that message. Here we are again.
I understood the fear and panic after 9/11. Very few Americans have ever had to deal with direct attacks against them, especially on their home soil. I tried (with varying degrees of success), to get my family and friends to remain calm and allow themselves to think clearly. I explained to them, your enemy always is trying to get you in 'panic' mode. When is became obvious that Iraq was our real objective, I was disappointed to see how many people were buying into WH propaganda. I am not going to revisit each step which as landed us where we are. That place is exactly where international oil, the war profiteers, and various lobbies wanted us.
Hopefully, most of you see the folly in this plan. Maliki is making promises he cannot deliver on. Our part of the bargain is to keep his government and him in power. He has finally figured it out. I can become king if I just play along with these new friends of mine. I might as well, I was not going to meet any of their 'progress benchmarks' anyway. For me, this is going to help 'clear the air' on who I am going to support for President. Any candidate who rolls on this, is going to lose my support.
curt @ 3:
And uuuuhhhhhh curt,... are they taking mortar fire on a daily basis too? I don't think so.
ted @ 78:
Prey tell, how much wealth and success has this adventure in Iraq brought us so far?
We have killed more Iraqi people in this invasion than Saddam ever did, if you include the people who have died from lack of medical, sanitation, clean drinking water, electricity, and have impoverished 4 million Iraqi refugees. Do you seriously think this is better? Most Iraqis say in 50 years, they may have something of their country back. The Iraqis want us to leave, they voted on it last spring. 70% of the general population want the occupation to end. The Iraqis were one of the most culturally modern Arab societys, and our occupation has given power to the Islamic fundamentalists.
Why dont you think we could have simply bought Iraqi oil? Or used the trillions of dollars this war will cost to develop green energy? Because, in 50 years, the world oil supply is going to be scarce no matter who is pumping. The country that invests in and develops green energy is going to be the rich and secure nation.
Our goal in the Middle East has always been one of containment, not conquest. Hope we get back to that policy with the next administration.
Dictators propping each other up at the expense of working people always makes me sick. And the scum supporting propped up dictators make me sick.
This ought to help the peace talks in Maryland!
Another US military base is just an excuse to stick more Anglo Saxon Chess pieces all over the planet.
Terrible:
The US maintains about 40,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, where they have been since 1953, following the cessation of hostilities between the US and forces from North Korea.
About 38,000 Americans died in that three-year war. However, things have been pretty quiet along the border since 1953. In other words, it's generally a fatal mistake to plague US bases with any form of ordnance. That's a key reason that countries in which we maintain bases are relatively orderly and safe.
MacDaKnife @ 96:
post of the day. Thanks Mac.
ted @ 78:
Yeah, the short bus. Now walk.
Paul in LA @ 70:
Paul, you've never really studied military history have you? No base ever built has ever been impregnable. Never. I'm with you on the rest though.
Why is it we NEVER SEEM TO MENTION anything about that great REAL Democracy next door to Pakistan?
INDIA.
Yes, they aced us out of some jobs.
But they are definitely good people and we seem to relish in ignoring them don't we?
ted @ 78:
Here's just a few of the things you are apparently missing: a wiped out US Treasury. 2 trillion dollars future debt. 4,000 dead US soldiers. 40,000+ wounded/injured US soldiers. 1,000,000 dead innocent Iraqi civilians. 3,000,000+ displaced innocent Iraqi civilians. And absolutely NOTHING to show for it except an awful lot of future hate against those who brought this about. Yeah I'd say you're missing an awful lot.
Of course they're (finally) talking about permanent bases. It's the whole reason we invaded in the first place. It's just that now that it's late in the game for the Bush administration, they have to close this thing out and secure their objectives before their successors have an opportunity to undo them.
This is what they had in mind all along; it's just that the uppity Iraqis kept fighting a little longer than they'd anticipated. We can't leave because there's too much chaos. But once the chaos dies down, we'll have no reason to leave and will set up a massive complex to rival Ramstein in Germany. So basically, we're never leaving. Get used to it.
no_slappz @ 102:
You don't get what I'm saying or something. It's been relatively quiet at the demilitarized zone because it's a demilitarized zone. You're not going to have anything like that in Iraq ever. You really don't get that do you. Comparing Iraq to Korea is one of the dumbest argumnets the wingnuts ever made. You'd be better off to not repeat their talking points. Even the lakeys who came up with that backed off it quite some time ago.
Andy K @ 71:
The Soviet involvement with Egypt came AFTER the U.S. backed out of its promise to financially invest in Egypt by helping Kamal Abd Al-Nasser build the Aswan Dam. That's when he went to the Russians seeking financial backing.
Sure it is. But that doesn't change the fact that you still think "they couldn't weave enough rugs to buy an old Sherman tank".
more taxmoney spent guarding pipelines so CEO's can have 9 figure retirement packages. We need to stop using internal combustion engines
Paul in LA @ 93:
You apparently haven't seen the "map" of the three state solution that was made in Iran, and passed out as part of the propaganda campaign by Iran in Shiite areas of South Iraq. Guess on which side of the border the Kurdish motherload of oil is? (Hint: Not in "Kurdistan".) Beyond that, you can't be that clueless to not see that Iran is at least anticipating a possible "happy coincidence" of their Shiite brothers "just happening" to posses all the oil. It's their job to anticipate such opportunities for their state. What is it you think the Iranian agents were doing in Iraq then? Making balloon animals in secret?
No state is clean, life doesn't work that way.
As for the first part. Talk about lack of substantiation. The Kurds like the "federation" as it is because they ALREADY operate independently -- they pretty much are a state at this point. Until the U.S. leaves anyway.
Then the shit will hit the fan. Turkey, Shiite, Sunni... the Kurds would be screwed. Maybe even Iran (through Iraqi Shia of course). Like the Kurds could stop Turkey if the U.S. has no presence near Iraq. As if the Shia would help them? Man, you are really out of touch with reality.
I have no clue what that "kill my children" bullshit is all about. Perhaps you lack the understanding that not every single American overseas is a baby killer. I'm sorry, but it's a pretty stupid thing to say even as hyperbole.
no_slappz @ 102:
Let me see if I can put it simply for you. There was never the kind of insurgency in Korea that there was in Vietnam and is in Iraq. Can you understand that? If not might I suggest you visit a library tomorrow and ask the librarian to show you the military history section.
What this means is that the surge works, but the surge is not working.
like
A paint brush works, but it is not working if no artisan picks it up and uses it.
What we are looking at is that Iraq can't or won't run their own country's security - or not much of anything else for that matter - and we will be there for the next 50 years or more, which will only infuriate the terrorists. Remember Osama's reason for attacking the US was our presence in his part of the world. Things will only get worse.
Ai was headed here ta write "cmon, permanent bases were always the goal... so OBVIOUS."
Then Ai saw curt's troll @3 .. MUCH more entertaining.
Way to go, you cute little ogre you.
The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) military strategy documents concocted by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, J. Bush, etc. back in '98 or '99 clearly spelled out the neo-con vision for America - starting with taking over several mid-east countries to secure the oil resources and BUILDING AND MAINTAINING FORWARD military bases from which to launch our future "conquests" and keep our position as the only superpower in the world (guess they forgot about China?). They have never had any intention of pulling back from the occupation of Iraq, and I doubt very seriously that Maliki had any say in the decision announced today - at least not if he wished to continue breathing.
The attacks in NY on 9/11 were staged by the US as a pretense to invade the ME, starting with Iraq - I mean, we Americans are sometimes pretty dumb, but I don't think anyone would have supported an invasion of anything had there not been a very convenient attack to get us all riled up against those "islamic terrorists." I'm still betting that Bush will find an excuse to bomb Iran before the elections next year - which he will also try to use to extend his time in "office." I asked the Magic 8 Ball about that and it said "my sources say a definite possibility."
What empire has been able to hold onto it's colonies after the money tree drys up or the natives storm the forts? We're fucked on so many levels. How can so many smart people be so stupid.
great post Mac!
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 112
PIL: "They prefer a loose Iraqi federation without bearing the brunt of US war with Iran, invasions by Turkey, and the eventual elimination of the Kurdish access to Kirkuk."
"the "map" of the three state solution that was made in Iran, and passed out as part of the propaganda campaign by Iran in Shiite areas of South Iraq."
Gee, you apparently ignored the source blog's comment:
Notice the word 'allegedly.' So an alleged map appears to suggest depriving the Kurds of Kirkuk oil. Wow, that means Iran is planning a genocide, eh?
Guess on which side of the border the Kurdish motherload of oil is? (Hint: Not in "Kurdistan".)
Kirkuk is to the west of Kurdistan.
What horseshit.
"What is it you think the Iranian agents were doing in Iraq then?"
If you don't know, that's hilarious. Quite obviously, the SCIRI was busily helping Shia survive under Sunni Hussein with his US backing.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 112 "As for the first part. Talk about lack of substantiation. The Kurds like the "federation" as it is because they ALREADY operate independently -- they pretty much are a state at this point. Until the U.S. leaves anyway."
They are already a federated state, as a result of the 1980s genocide. They would like that status to continue -- they do not want a separate state, because that means war with Turkey.
"Then the shit will hit the fan. Turkey, Shiite, Sunni... the Kurds would be screwed."
The Turks have been investing in I. Kurdistan intensively. As for the Arab federated states, they aren't really a problem. The only real problem is the US intent to dismantle even the federated states model, in favor of a failed state with four to fifteen airbases and a war with Iran.
"Like the Kurds could stop Turkey if the U.S. has no presence near Iraq."
The Kurds have stopped Turkey several times already. Turks don't want a war with I. Kurdistan, because it dawned on them that I. Kurdistan was a buffer against the disorder in Arab Iraq.
Paul in LA @ 82:
Amen.
Iraq is thousands of years old. chimpy's war has destroyed most of Iraq's treasures. This we will pay for, this country which is blimp on a timeline compared to Iraq's longevity.
chimpy is determined to occupy the ME.
This was the goal from the beginning. It was always the neo-conservative fantasy land for a permanent base right smack in the middle of the middle east (Babylon), with robust power projection capability into any hot spot threatening "US interests",
including Iran, Syria, etc. True stability in Iraq was incidental and unimportant. Al-Maliki will mortgage his own people for military aid and continued power.
To achieve their goal, we have the Bush policy, an essential part of the plan, to drain American treasure to the point that America (via the Democratic party) will be led to believe that re-deployment of troops is the peace-nik approach. In one fail swoop, the neacon fantasy is dressed in the garb of pacifism and rationality.
Repeat after me ... we will always be in Iraq. Stay the course and redeployment are a matter of semantics and slogans not substance.
WashStateBlue @ 20:
We the people can stop it and will, this is the second most important political goal for patriotic Americans after impeaching the war criminals in power right now. This is vital to restore the constitution, rule of law, friendship of nations, and moral standing. All foreign military bases must be shut down!
Important to vote for Kucinich and Paul for both nominations in '08. Don't let us down people!
Finally, we're getting down to the nitty-gritty of 'World Democracy', Bush-style.
Two dictators, one appointed by the other, get together and 'vote' on whether they should support each other, in perpetuity
curt @ 3 :
Not is is what Empires do.
@Topic :
Set up your puppet government and defend it at all costs.
Make it weak so it needs you. Then claim you are only there to help (good for the fools at home).
Terrible @ 105 "Paul, you've never really studied military history have you? No base ever built has ever been impregnable. Never."
What does history have to do with it? These are high-tech times.
Patton didn't face robotic guns with night vision, microwave weapons, drones, landmines and attack helicopters.
Those bases aren't impregnable from the standpoint of Iran, but from the standpoint of an insurgency they are. A ruthless regime with no concern for civilian life has PLENTY of ultramodern antipersonnel weapons they can use.
They are already testing their weapons on civilians, and have been. That massive Dioxin spill found in front of DOW Chemicals in the last few weeks is domestic blowback from Vietnam-era weapons testing on civilians (and an even more grotesque set of Pentagon/WH war crimes).
Where those bases are weak is politically. We are far more likely to dismantle them from here, then insurgency is going to overwhelm them there.
Dioxin spill found:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Dioxin_spot_in_Mich_could_be_worst_...
Paul in LA @ 125:
Sorry, Paul, but all of the night-vision goggles and anti-personnel weaponry cannot make a fortress impregnable. As long as someone can get in, anyone can get in.
Not sayin' these bases would be easy to crack, but it can be done.
Andy K @ 92:
Actually, Suleiman was better than that. He didn't just try to join Europe, he attempted to conquer it in order to make them let him join. Lol. What's really interesting is that in World War I, the Ottomans ruled the Middle East, fought on seven fronts at one time, won on every one of them for three years, before the Armenians caused a major collapse on one front, and the typical reaction of that time, massacre. If the Ottomans could take the English and the entire Entente on seven fronts and not quit, imagine what they'dve done on the Allied side! Since I'm on this, an Ottoman Empire that stayed either neutral or out of World War I would mean a more peaceful Middle East today.
The whole clusterfuck that the Arab world is today, is laid square at the feet of the French and the English introducing the new concepts of Nationalism and Nation-states to the Middle East. All due to the 1923 collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Maliki and all Iraqis can kiss goodbye Iraqi sovereignty if permanent bases are allowed.
Say goodnight to your souls, Iraqis, because Maliki is getting ready to sign them over to Satan.
Paul @ 129 :
That might be the reason why there is an insurgency.
But this was not really surprising, was it? They already have the puppet government and the terror and death squads.
The occupation forces having free fare and going crazy, slaughtering people.
And when the Kurds finally realize that the US will sell them out as well just to keep Turkey in line, they will rebel as well.
Most likely the plan since DAY 1, and to be carried out right after "Mission Accomplished", however, an insurgency moved into the fray, and,,, we all know the rest of that story.
Andy K @ 127:
Jusy send in a few male escorts. Mission Accomplished.
curt @ 3:
Ah yes...and so did the roman empire...and things didn't go so well for them at the end...
Piss on Maliki (as he tries to sneak in through the doggie door)
Andy K @ 127 "Sorry, Paul, but all of the night-vision goggles and anti-personnel weaponry cannot make a fortress impregnable. As long as someone can get in, anyone can get in."
There is no reason for anyone to be 'let in.' These are AIR-SUPPORTED bases. The large ones are big enough that a loaded C5A can land and take off without fear from shoulder-fired missiles.
Can that security be breached? Only with US complicity.
Login or Register to post comments.