Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control

[Nedak]

We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them?

 

No, it just shows how we have to control everything.

 

Do you see any other countries with bases in the US?

[Arcesious]

Indeed. I just checked, and apparently...

 

http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html

 

/here comes WWIII

[Achilles]

Great find, Arcesious.

 

Maps only tell you part of the story though. History helps to flesh out some of what maps alone cannot.

[Totenkopf]

Indeed. I just checked, and apparently...

 

http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html

 

/here comes WWIII

 

I was talking to my uncle the other night and he (was both in the military and the civ side of the govt) said that the US had over 1000 bases (including "secret installations") spread around the world.

[Web Rider]

Great find, Arcesious.

 

Maps only tell you part of the story though. History helps to flesh out some of what maps alone cannot.

 

exactly, many of these bases were established in major wars for countries that could not protect themselves and were allies, or countries that were vital points in waging war. After the war, many war-ravaged countries needed the US to stick around to help them rebuild and keep control(for good or ill), it is a more recent development that countries have started to object to a US presence.

 

Partly because we're often forcing ourselves on them and/or limiting them, and also because many of the people new protesting are of newer generations with, to be blunt, short memories regarding why those bases came to be, some *coughKoreacough* just stem from racism.

[Jae Onasi]

Indeed. I just checked, and apparently...

 

http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html

 

/here comes WWIII

 

I'd like to point out that US Consulates (or the contingent of soldiers attached to them) are referred to as 'installations'. My brother-in-law was in the installation that was attached to the US Consulate in Germany. So it's hardly surprising that we have 'installations' all over the world.

[Arcesious]

It's interesting when you take note as to what countries are not occupied at all by the USA, and which ones are... Notice how africa is untouched, and that the US has a long line of countries surrounding asian countries like Russia and China, and surrounding Eastern Europe, from the south, all the way to the Eastern seaboard of Asia... It's a 'boxing-in' tactical formation of bases and US forces...

[ForeverNight]

It's also pretty interesting when you take note of those nations that are 'friendly' to us.

 

Most of those installations, are in areas that don't want to kill us all. With the exception being the Installations in the Middle East... however, I think most of those are in friendly countries.

 

So, we are 'boxing in' who? China? N. Korea? Africa? Brazil? Argentina? Chile? Russia? And a whole lot of other countries I'm not up to listing.

 

(Yes, I'm aware that Africa is a continent, but I didn't want to list all the countries in Africa.)

 

Also, it says on there that the "United States has over 730 military installations and bases in over 50 countries." Frankly, I'd be worried if the number was less.

 

The US seems to be taking on a larger role (Or, rather, trying) in the World. So, if we were trying to break in, we'd want a stronger military presence in the world. And, more military presence in the world means that we need more installations in the world.

 

Does that make any sense?

[Arcesious]

As I see it, the US has been slowly mobilizing its forces, for quite awhile... We don't have any bases in Russia and China because we do't want to make the leaders of those countries more mad than they already are at us...

[ForeverNight]

So, your view of this is that the US is poised for total take-over of the world?

 

No leader in a Democratic society would do something like that. Mainly because of how he, or she, would be treated come election year.

 

Also, the sheer cost involved in a task such as this is enormous. Not only the monetary cost, but the cost in lives and resources.

 

Have you ever played Civilization? In the game you control a government and grow it from a single city in 4000 BC. From there you go until 2050 AD and you do with your 'empire' as you will.

 

It also really makes you appreciate how low the body count for Iraq is. There's been, what? 4099 total casualties(1)? Over a period of ~4/5 years.

 

Source

 

That's amazing! Since we're fighting an enemy that has access to close to modern weaponry and, according to people I've heard talk about why we should get out, training that is on par with our own.

 

So, in a 'war' since it is no longer a war, but an occupation, we've taken 4099 casualties in the course of almost 5 years.

 

On D-Day, however, there were 2500 dead, almost half of what we've taken in the course of this 'war'. Amazing how perception changes!

 

source

 

Well, I've gone overboard on trying to answer your question, but I hope I've done it.

 

1=Use of the word casualties in this case refers to total dead, not dead, wounded, and MIA's.

[Arcesious]

I never said that the mobilization was a slow moving plan to take over the world... I'm saying that, in the event that something triggers a WWIII, The US has accomplished a very strong, fortified position in the world, which it can use to its advantage if needed. The US wants, as far as I know, is trying to turn the world all into a democracy, free market, and such. And in the case of soem Asian countries, it should be noted that not all of them give as much freedom to the people as the US does. The presence of these bases everywhere can be used for an Invasion, Assault, or to enforce democracy. As the map I linked says, a lot fo these bases seem to have more of a political purpose than a military one at the moment... The political purpose working like this in a diplomacy effort in the case of avoiding war:

 

USA: "We've got tons of military forces surrounding you, and if you don't do what we say, we will use them."

 

Of course, such a diplomatic strategy doesn't usually work very well for keeping peace...

[Achilles]

It's also pretty interesting when you take note of those nations that are 'friendly' to us.

Some of them are 'friendly' because they've already been conquered by us.

 

So, we are 'boxing in' who? China? N. Korea? Africa? Brazil? Argentina? Chile? Russia? And a whole lot of other countries I'm not up to listing.

The location of our installations does provide some measure of tactical advantage, no? Do you think that all of the countries that you listed here (and some of the ones that you did not) are not cognizant of the fact that they are within immediate reach of the U.S military?

 

Also, it says on there that the "United States has over 730 military installations and bases in over 50 countries." Frankly, I'd be worried if the number was less.

 

The US seems to be taking on a larger role (Or, rather, trying) in the World. So, if we were trying to break in, we'd want a stronger military presence in the world. And, more military presence in the world means that we need more installations in the world.

 

Does that make any sense?

Yes, it makes perfect sense within the context of imperialism.

 

So, your view of this is that the US is poised for total take-over of the world?

 

No leader in a Democratic society would do something like that. Mainly because of how he, or she, would be treated come election year.

That isn't stopping us from trying.

 

Also, the sheer cost involved in a task such as this is enormous. Not only the monetary cost, but the cost in lives and resources.

No doubt. Have you seen the condition of our armed forces and economy lately?

 

It also really makes you appreciate how low the body count for Iraq is. There's been, what? 4099 total casualties(1)? Over a period of ~4/5 years.

 

Source

 

That's amazing! Since we're fighting an enemy that has access to close to modern weaponry and, according to people I've heard talk about why we should get out, training that is on par with our own.

[Jae Onasi]

It's interesting when you take note as to what countries are not occupied at all by the USA, and which ones are... Notice how africa is untouched, and that the US has a long line of countries surrounding asian countries like Russia and China, and surrounding Eastern Europe, from the south, all the way to the Eastern seaboard of Asia... It's a 'boxing-in' tactical formation of bases and US forces...

 

There's absolutely no surprise to that--it's a carry-over of the Cold War when a good chunk of Eastern Europe was either part of the Soviet Union or allied with the Soviets. Since Communism wasn't an issue in Africa, we have very little resources devoted there. It's not a boxing-in of the Middle East--it was a firewall against Communism and an attempt to slow down or stop the Sino-Soviet takeover of any more countries after WWII.

[Achilles]

And now that the Cold War has been over for nearly 20 years?

[ForeverNight]

Is the world automatically safe with the fall of the Soviet Union?

[Achilles]

At what point did the world elect that it was our job to ensure the world's safety? Who protects the world from us?

[JediMaster12]

Is the world automatically safe with the fall of the Soviet Union?

Safe from what? Communism?

 

The Soviet Union was a facist state. Communism is the idea that everyone has equal share in the land, resources, etc. I am oversimplifying it but I am no economist. We have our "genisus" in DC to thank for creating the big "Red Dog."

 

After the Cold War, the US needed some "Other" to use. This fell on the lot of the Arabs. The mujihadeen, the "Freedom Fighters" that the US financed in Afghanistan became the new target since they stayed not falling in line with US policy. I should note that jihad and mujihadeen have been misused by both sides. In Arabic jihad means struggle like struggling to succeed and mujihadeen means striver. With this new "other" the whole all Arabs are Muslims and all Muslims are terrorists start up.

 

Fascism occurs in all faces. Not necessarily the more infamous characters in history like Stalin and Hitler. If you think about it, we are under a capitalist facism. Economic interests have dictated US foreign policy for years. The only reason such a fuss is made now is that the US is trying to strut itself as the world power, which it is btw. Makes me wonder if anyone remembers that CHina holds most of our national deficit...

[Jae Onasi]

And now that the Cold War has been over for nearly 20 years?

I suspect paranoia/fear that Communism will become the rule again in Russia, and the fact that China is still Communist. The people currently in power grew up with Khrushchev banging his shoe on the desk and Brezhnev's arms race policies. A lot of us who grew up during that time think the threat is reduced, but certainly not gone. Russia may be a shadow of its former self, but it has a tremendous amount of resources available, and it should never be underestimated.

 

I'm not denying that the installations have current strategic importance for global activities, but I wanted people to understand the background on why those facilities were originally built where they are.

[mur'phon]

The US wants, as far as I know, is to turn the world all into a democracy, free market, and such.

Only when it benefits itself, like every other country it has its own intrest in mind. If it really wanted to spread free marketism it wouldn't have defended it's subsidized agriculture so fiercly.

 

Forever Night: add the civilian deaths to your numbers, or is it only american lives that count?

 

That's amazing! Since we're fighting an enemy that has access to close to modern weaponry and, according to people I've heard talk about why we should get out, training that is on par with our own.

 

Shepherders, AK's, If that is equipment and training on par with U.S soldiers the world have little to fear

 

Who protects the world from us?

 

Mad Vlad, paranoid dragon, and comatose giant. Not that they are likely to do much as long as they are left alone.

 

Economic interests have dictated US foreign policy for years.

 

Like almost every country, the U.S looks after number one, and why shouldn't it? Its notlike anyone else are going to.

[Web Rider]

At what point did the world elect that it was our job to ensure the world's safety? Who protects the world from us?

 

The world "elected" the US to do it when they didn't want the USSR or China doing it and Europe didn't give a darn to help out.

[JediMaster12]

Like almost every country' date=' the U.S looks after number one, and why shouldn't it? Its notlike anyone else are going to.[/Quote']

Ah but how far has it gone since our current economic colonization of Iraq is deemed illegal under international law, which is part in part a violation of the "supreme law of the land?"

[mur'phon]

The "supreeme law of the land" is mainly a "sleeping" law, until someone enforces it it means little for states breaking it.

[Totenkopf]

At what point did the world elect that it was our job to ensure the world's safety? Who protects the world from us?

 

Gee, I'm kinda hoping it's the UN. B/c if we were really serious about that kind of naked aggresion.....it'd be a cakewalk (in spite of Clinton's emaciation of the US military). Also, while the Cold War ended in the West's favor.......Russia is still as paranoid and cagey as ever.

 

@Mur'phon-who's the comatose giant? Mad Vlad would have been Russia, and the paranoid Dragon China (or were you merely speaking figuratively)?

[mur'phon]

Sleeping giant= EU, an external threat would make it the superpower

[Darth Xander]

I just want this to end before it get outs of hand