Bush: US presence in Iraq > 50 years

[CptStern]

President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea in which "you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support model."

"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.

but ..

Iraq's neighbors have raised concerns about the possibility of the United States maintaining permanent bases in Iraq, and some U.S. lawmakers have said they think the Iraqi insurgency may have been fueled by perceptions the United States wants a permanent presence in the country.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3041621320070530?pageNumber=1

probably why they're building this:

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/us-embassy-in-iraq-to-be-worlds-biggest/20070519185809990001



which is contrary to what they said in the lead up to the invasion:

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." - Donald Rumsfeld

 

[Kadayi]

50 years..just enough time to leech the country dry of oil...

 

[CptStern]

no need to leech when they can control it instead ...also makes a good base of operations to jump start wars

 

[brink's]

What's that famous rumsfeld quote? "3 months, maybe 6 months, i doubt a year" something to that effect. I'm disgusted.

 

[CptStern]

heh there's two quotes attributed to rumsfeld ..the 5 weeks months and the 6 weeks months ..he's definately not psychic

 

[Kadayi]

Psychotic..but not psychic

 

[CptStern]

ya Blowfeld is pretty evil ..I mean even Evil likes Rumsfeld ..probably cuz he's also evil

 

[The Monkey]

That $592 million embassy will be the shit.

 

[clarky003]

That's very true though it's not about leeching, it's about controlling the distribution of the oil, which means securing areas around pipelines, ports and sources.

If you look up the locations of the permanent bases in relation to the pipelines there is no real doubt that it was the priority when going into the middle east.

 

[CptStern]

That $592 million embassy will be the shit.

ya it will ...look here's a pic of the Embassy's swimming pool ....not as nice as Iraqi public spaces/swimming pools

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If you look up the locations of the permanent bases in relation to the pipelines there is no real doubt that it was the priority when going into the middle east.

But with most of the power grids down the only way anyone will be getting oil out of Iraqs soil is either through plastic straws or buckets.

Additionally you could also argue that the reason behind the placement of Coalition establishments around key pipelines and refineries is to prevent those resources from being sabotaged by Insurgents who want to bring the thought of a democratic Iraq to the ground, burning.

 

[Gunner]

I'm convinced that they knew all along what they were getting into and that permanent bases were planned from the very beginning.

 

[<RJMC>]

I guess the USA will have 51 states now?

 

[CptStern]

sure why not, although to be fair they dont allow brown people to become citizens ..and if they did accept them as a state think of all the lawsuits over things like the government killing your livestock, neighbours, family etc

btw the new embassy is larger than the vatican

 

[brink's]

That's a pretty modest pool if you ask me. Why not go Olympic size? I mean it's not like there are millions of people starving to death everyday from lack of nourishment etc. why not indulge a bit.

****ing idiots.

 

[Absinthe]

But with most of the power grids down the only way anyone will be getting oil out of Iraqs soil is either through plastic straws or buckets.

Additionally you could also argue that the reason behind the placement of Coalition establishments around key pipelines and refineries is to prevent those resources from being sabotaged by Insurgents who want to bring the thought of a democratic Iraq to the ground, burning.

Democratic Iraq was a failure before it was even conceived. They have no interest in democracy. The insurgency is but a reflection of that.

 

[Kadayi]

Democratic Iraq was a failure before it was even conceived. They have no interest in democracy. The insurgency is but a reflection of that.

The only really viable solution atm is to the partition of the country into 3 distinct self governing regions to satisfy each of the ethnic/religious groups demands (Sunni, Shiite & Kurds).

 

[spookymooky]

btw the new embassy is larger than the vatican

The whole city? Srsly?

 

[Zyreal]

The whole city? Srsly?

The whole country.

On-Topic: Just saw that there is a bill going into the senate that would "vote us out".

 

[Dinkleberry]

I've just had a thought - if the US do leave within a short timespan, Iraq's probably going to be a right shithole still... wouldn't that make it possible for Iran to muscle in and invade??? And then if Iran get a nuke, even if it's no more than a nuclear fart, it still might be enough to deter neighbouring countries (and maybe bigger countries) from interfering. Shit, if it's also true that Iran have been supplying weapons to sects within Iraq then it adds to the destabilisation which would help them achieve that goal.

But then again - all the pointers to this conclusion could be propaganda cleverly leaked from within the whitehouse to justify a prolonged stay and hence more $$!! Aaaaah! Conspiracy!

 

[FieryGoose]

**** living life in fear...However, I say let them build their blast proof embassy and large swimming pool. Even if it is what you guys suspect it to be...An essential location aiding in the start of world conquest.
Also I'm pretty sure the Vatican isn't a country, I think it's similar to our D.C. It's not a separate state since we don't want to give one single state too much power just because it hosts the nations capital much like Rome and Italy.
But then again I could be entirely wrong just thinking out loud...

 

[The Monkey]

Also I'm pretty sure the Vatican isn't a country, I think it's similar to our D.C. It's not a separate state since we don't want to give one single state too much power just because it hosts the nations capital much like Rome and Italy.
But then again I could be entirely wrong just thinking out loud...

D:

 

[CptStern]

**** living life in fear...However, I say let them build their blast proof embassy and large swimming pool. Even if it is what you guys suspect it to be...An essential location aiding in the start of world conquest.
Also I'm pretty sure the Vatican isn't a country, I think it's similar to our D.C. It's not a separate state since we don't want to give one single state too much power just because it hosts the nations capital much like Rome and Italy.
But then again I could be entirely wrong just thinking out loud...

Vatican City, officially State of the Vatican City (Latin: Status Civitatis Vaticanae; Italian: Stato della Citt? del Vaticano), is a landlocked sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a walled enclave within the city of Rome. At approximately 44 hectares (108.7 acres), it is the smallest independent nation in the world

The whole city? Srsly?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070124&articleId=4579

 

[leib10]

What's that famous rumsfeld quote? "3 months, maybe 6 months, i doubt a year" something to that effect. I'm disgusted.

"Best laid schemes 'o mice and men..."

Never promise something you can't deliver.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Democratic Iraq was a failure before it was even conceived. They have no interest in democracy. The insurgency is but a reflection of that.

Democratic Iraq might still be a success, even without the Bush Zeal of screwing JUST about everything up. The insurgeny is'int a reflection of that -- just because some men choose not to fight with swords doesn't mean they're resisting or supporting the Democracy.

The only really viable solution atm is to the partition of the country into 3 distinct self governing regions to satisfy each of the ethnic/religious groups demands (Sunni, Shiite & Kurds).

Theres a way to do this without splintering the country between factions. However, those three first must find a common ground. Before, it was resist the occupation -- now at least half of those are just as concerned about the presence of our forces as they are about ... say, they're neighbors down the street who are Mehdi Army.

 

[Absinthe]

Democratic Iraq might still be a success, even without the Bush Zeal of screwing JUST about everything up. The insurgeny is'int a reflection of that -- just because some men choose not to fight with swords doesn't mean they're resisting or supporting the Democracy.

Even without Bush & Co. it would still be a mess. Islamic law has already been enshrined in the country's constitution. The increasingly fragmented demographics show few signs of wanting true, heartfelt cooperation. Militias are taking the law into their own hands, and while they do aim to combat insurgents, they also have an all too frequent tendency to engage in revenge killings and attack political opponents.

Left to their own devices, it is inevitable that they would eventually elect in another oppressive dictator. Shiite or Sunni. Secular or otherwise. They care not about oppression, but rather who is at the head of it. Democratic Iraq may be a possibility in the future (assuming it doesn't fracture or self-combust), but not today when religious, tribal feuds are so entrenched in its society. And no amount of foreign intervention is going to bring about a change that needs to come from within the people themselves.

This is true not only for Iraq, but many other nations within the region.

 

[Kadayi]

Left to their own devices, it is inevitable that they would eventually elect in another oppressive dictator. Shiite or Sunni. Secular or otherwise.

You don't elect a dictator..they just take control. Without anyone in overall control I think the 3 way partition might well occur naturally.

 

[lePobz]

I'd blow the sh*t out of myself and the yanks if they tried any of that sh*t in my country.

 

[Absinthe]

You don't elect a dictator..they just take control. Without anyone in overall control I think the 3 way partition might well occur naturally.

Dictators are not wholly unfamiliar with democracy. Both Hitler and Mussolini used it to enter power. Saddam Hussein himself enacted an election just prior to the US invading (although it was obviously a sham). But such elaborate presentations only disguised sheer, brutish intentions.

This is no different than much of the Middle East. Entire nations will rally under a party or government that would no sooner execute people for infidelity or homosexuality. Political bodies that would invade the privacy of its citizens and exercise martial law on a whim. These are dictatorships that, all coercion aside, are propped up by the wills of their people primarily. The only thing keeping the Iraqi government from turning into these governments overnight has been due to the guiding hands of Coalition forces.

In Iraq's case, one need look no further than the execution of Saddam Hussein. An evil, corrupt murderer that had pressed a boot heel down on his country's neck for ages became a martyr - a figure of sympathy and solidarity. His travesties could be overlooked because of his religion, his ethnicity, and even the stability (if of the utterly stifling kind) he offered pre-invasion. That such a man can be remembered of fondly by roughly half of a nation's populace is an indication that the leadership positions are decided mostly on perceived blood ties or ideological connections. If that's to be called democracy, it's of the lowest order.

 

[Sulkdodds]

It's also probable that democracy requires stability to function, and for that it requires property - a middle class. It needs the majority of people to believe, if not in individual parties and their agendas, in the viability of the system as a whole. The more they have to lose (houses, cars, mortgages, jobs) the more they will focus any political feeling through the apperatus of a political system rather than through violent resistance.

 

[Absinthe]

Also very true.

When so much of a population has practically nothing to lose, why try slipping in bed with democracy if the more appealing solution (at least initially) is violent recourse?

 

[99.vikram]

which is contrary to what they said in the lead up to the invasion:

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." - Donald Rumsfeld

Pfft. As if that even matters. American voters have impaired memories. "WMDs in Iraq". lol.

 

[CptStern]

"that's a lie, we never said Saddam had WMD, we went in there for humanitarian reasons"

"that's a lie, we never went in there for humanitarian reasons, we went in there for to help the world fight terrorism"


"that's a lie, we never said we went in there to help the world fight terrorism, we went in there because ..well just because goddamit, you're just anti-american and are jealous of our freedoms/superior way of life ..fcuk it, the US should stop helping countries, no one appreciates it anyways"