Achilles Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors Full Story Intro: A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November. The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilize Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November. We heard a little bit about this a few months back but then it disappeared off the radar. Looks like it's back again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors Full Story Intro: We heard a little bit about this a few months back but then it disappeared off the radar. Looks like it's back again That is very very sinister, and seems to confirm to me, that the reasons given for the war were never the real motivations. If Obama gets in, can he not undo the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Don* Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 The signature of a security agreement, and a parallel deal providing a legal basis for keeping US troops in Iraq, is unlikely to be accepted by most Iraqis. But the Kurds, who make up a fifth of the population, will probably favour a continuing American presence, as will Sunni Arab political leaders who want US forces to dilute the power of the Shia. The Sunni Arab community, which has broadly supported a guerrilla war against US occupation, is likely to be split. This part of the article stuck out. Chances are, the Iraqi civilians aren't going to be happy with this. I'm guessing more "protests" are along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them? No, but there is a distinct difference between Germany and Japan and Iraq; fanatical Islam. Also leaving any bases in Iraq, directly plays into the hands of al-Qaeda recruitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Bah. This makes me even sicker to know that Bush is our President. I have a hard time describing my antipathy towards him, but this just goes over the line (as do many other thinks passed by his regime Presidency). Anyways, this sort of dealing makes me nervous, more or less for the future of the World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them? TBH, Germany and Japan aren't chock full of radical terrorists that bomb us every day. Those bases are not at risk. They were put into place after the war was won, right? These that we're talking about here would be like putting 50 bases into Vietnam the day before Saigon fell. They're targets. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them? We don't have 50 of them or control of their airspace. One or two is strategic. I could even see four, one for every branch of the service. Fifty is control not only of Iraq but of the region and that would be a problem to all the surrounding countries. How would we feel if North Korea, China or Russia put 50 bases in Mexico? Heck if Great Britain put 50 bases in Mexico it would be worrisome to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da_Man_2423 Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 If Obama gets in, can he not undo the deal? Nothing is set in stone, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 If all of this is executively driven, most likely. Unless we sign off of some kind of treaty, I'm guessing he could reverse US policy in that region. Much turmoil would likely ensue (I'm NOT saying the ME would "blow up", btw). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 It does not matter if it is a ratified treaty or only one agreed to in principle we can pull out of it. Bush has set the bar pretty high in dishonoring our commitments to the world community. We pulled out of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, pretty much killed the purpose of the Tobacco Treaty and quit the ABM Treaty. Therefore, if the next president wants to continue the Bush legacy of dishonoring the United States commitments to the rest of the world, this could be another time for us to break our word. I would rather we stopped him from making this commitment in the first place. If the deal is struck, it is a no win situation for the U.S. to pull out of it. Either we are seen as dishonorable by not keeping our word or it is seen as we are bowing to the terrorist and the protestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Down Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I like the way Bush thinks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them? there are 3 bases in germany, one is a central European base. There are 5 in Japan, for various branches of the military(navy, marines, army, ect..) http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm This is completly unacceptable, all treaties and documents with foreign nations should and need to be ratified by Congress. The Preisdent does not have the right to go off making treaties with other countries all willy nilly. ESPECIALLY these kinda of treaties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 We need to get out of other people's buisness before it's too late. There are numerous other reason why Bush wants a foothold in the Middle East. Why build 50 military bases and have control of the arispace? I'll tell you. Gas is estimated to hit 150 a barrel in July. In the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia, there's lots of oil. Many countries do not trust the USA. As it turns out, The middle east is the most powerful strategical point in the world. It's between Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is the perfect military foothold for a country to have under control, especially if WWIII occurs. Three bases In germany allows for a small foothold in Europe, and 5 in japan allows for a small foothold for assault/invasion/defense against Asia. We have military bases in many pacific islands. Naval power would be best focused from an attack in the Pacific Ocean if WWIII came. But, if we do this, we will gain a lot more distrust in those three continents. If we don't, we'll be more militarily vulnerable in the event of WWIII, but we would gain more trust among other countries, if we pull out of there, possibly averting full-scale conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 But, if we do this, we will gain a lot more distrust in those three continents. If we don't, we'll be more militarily vulnerable in the event of WWIII, but we would gain more trust among other countries, if we pull out of there, possibly averting full-scale conflict. And gaining trust from other nations can be much stronger than military control. If the region was your ally, then their armies would be fighting for you, not against you, which is kinda a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 This is completly unacceptable, all treaties and documents with foreign nations should and need to be ratified by Congress. The Preisdent does not have the right to go off making treaties with other countries all willy nilly. ESPECIALLY these kinda of treaties.QFT. Why build 50 military bases and have control of the arispace? It'll be interesting to see where these bases are constructed with relation to the oil pipeline. As it turns out, The middle east is the most powerful strategical point in the world. It's between Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is the perfect military foothold for a country to have under control, especially if WWIII occurs.Much easier to keep China, India, and Russia in check if we're already camped out in their yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 This is, as the general consensus seems to be, completely unacceptable. However, if things continue the way they have been going, I have a feeling that we will have a near-permanent base in Iraq. I agree with Achilles: It'll be interesting to see if the bases are near any of the Oil Pipelines. I have a feeling that World War Three will be fought over commodities, such as food and fuel. Of course, I wonder if this all could have been avoided if the population was kept in check (I'm not advocating this, though. It's just a question/theory)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I see no problem here. We have bases in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, as Jae stated. And if you seriously think the Imperial Japanese weren't just as fanatical as Radical Islam, I take it you don't remember who pioneered the strategy of 'Fly Planes into the target'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I see no problem here. We have bases in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, as Jae stated. And if you seriously think the Imperial Japanese weren't just as fanatical as Radical Islam, I take it you don't remember who pioneered the strategy of 'Fly Planes into the target'. So, you're proposing that, in order to 'maintain stability,' the United States should keep military bases all over the World (NOTE: This isn't stated, per se, but is my impression from Corinthians's post)? So, supposedly, we're the great mediator? We can do no wrong? Oh, how I would love it if this were true. My interpretation of your post is: We can't let radicals blow us up, so we'll just occupy them instead. Obviously, occupation succeeds every time. Not only will it result in an angered world at our occupation, but it will anger the entire region for our presence. Suggesting that course of action is not only foolish, but close minded. If you had an alternate meaning, my apologies, but your post wasn't exactly clear (to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Hm. Interesting. I hadn't contemplated it as such. The idea of a global network of military fortresses spanning the entire world is attractive... - By the way, do you think we need to put a garrison at McMurdo Sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 I agree with Achilles: It'll be interesting to see if the bases are near any of the Oil Pipelines. Map of oil pipelines Map of current major base camps and forward operating bases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 It does not matter if it is a ratified treaty or only one agreed to in principle we can pull out of it. Bush has set the bar pretty high in dishonoring our commitments to the world community. We pulled out of the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, pretty much killed the purpose of the Tobacco Treaty and quit the ABM Treaty. Therefore, if the next president wants to continue the Bush legacy of dishonoring the United States commitments to the rest of the world, this could be another time for us to break our word. I would rather we stopped him from making this commitment in the first place. If the deal is struck, it is a no win situation for the U.S. to pull out of it. Either we are seen as dishonorable by not keeping our word or it is seen as we are bowing to the terrorist and the protestors. We never actually signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty, so there was nothing to w/drawl from in the first place. Clinton (Bill) didn't exactly favor it either. The ABM treaty was no longer legally valid as the USSR ceased to exist. My only concern, frankly, is the financial cost of any further obligations in the ME. Also, why would one even wonder if the base camps would be placed anywhere near a strategic natural resource and it's infrastructure? It only makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Map of oil pipelines Map of current major base camps and forward operating bases *Appalled* Wow. I expected as much coming from the Government, but actually having 'proof' is more astounding. Thanks for that, Achilles. I feel even more ashamed of our President now than I did a few moments ago. *Shakes head* Bush and his Presidency (or lack thereof). I realize that all of this could be considered 'coincidental,' and is different to each person. It's all about interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 I don't get it. You find this so incriminating. Why? Iraq's only significant natural resource is Oil, which happens to be precious as Gold right now. What else is there for us to protect in that region but sand and bones? The only thing of strategic value is their Oil, unless you happen to be a glassblower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Don* Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 What else is there for us to protect in that region but sand and bones? The only thing of strategic value is their Oil... The question that I'd like to ask is why does the United States feel it necessary to "protect" other countries commoditities? Granted, we're in desperate need of cheaper oil, but that doesn't justify walking into another country and sitting on their resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.