US Forces to remain in Iraq ...indefinately

[CptStern]

""We will continue with a rotational presence of some type in that area more or less indefinitely," he said. "We have interests in that part of the world and an interest in staying in touch with the militaries over there." - Gen. John Jumper


can anyone say Pax Americana?

"Gen. Jumper let the cat out of the bag. While President George Bush hints at eventual troop withdrawals, the Pentagon is busy building four major, permanent air bases in Iraq that will require heavy infantry protection.

Jumper's revelation confirms what this column has long said: The Pentagon plans to copy Imperial Britain's method of ruling oil-rich Iraq. In the 1920s, the British cobbled together Iraq from three disparate Ottoman provinces to control newly-found oil fields in Kurdistan and along the Iranian border.

London installed a puppet king and built an army of sepoy (native) troops to keep order and put down minor uprisings. Government minister Winston Churchill authorized use of poisonous mustard gas against Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq and Pushtuns in Afghanistan (today's Taliban). The RAF crushed all revolts.

It seems this is what Jumper has in mind. Mobile U.S. ground intervention forces will remain at the four major "Fort Apache" bases guarding Iraq's major oil fields. These bases will be "ceded" to the U.S. by a compliant Iraqi regime. The U.S. Air Force will police the Pax Americana with its precision-guided munitions and armed drones."

 

[Tr0n]

Not surprising.

 

[Lemonking]

"U.S the new Saddam"


dont you think thats going a bit to far?

 

[KoreBolteR]

if it stops terrorists from roaming free killing innocents, its all good

 

[Tr0n]

if it stops terrorists from roaming free killing innocents, its all good

...but it won't.

 

[Lemonking]

it well atleast make it harder for does douches to blow things up.

 

[Icarusintel]

wow, take a history course and come back, we've kept troops in most of the nations we've gone into in some form or another, this is nothing new
for examples see Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.

 

[KoreBolteR]

...but it won't.

yeah, but itll happen less.

 

[SAJ]

Actually , I think you will find that things were blowing up a lot less before American and English troops arrived.

 

[Absinthe]

wow, take a history course and come back, we've kept troops in most of the nations we've gone into in some form or another, this is nothing new
for examples see Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.

Except comparing them is stupid because we're dealing with a completely different region and mindset. The terrorists are fueled by religious ideology, not conquest and power per se. Do you think American troops are going to stand in the way of their god?

Actually , I think you will find that things were blowing up a lot less before American and English troops arrived.

QFE

And there's no sign of it letting up.

 

[Icarusintel]

Except comparing them is stupid because we're dealing with a completely different region and mindset. The terrorists are fueled by religious ideology, not conquest and power per se. Do you think American troops are going to stand in the way of their god?

no, i was merely pointing out that this is certainly nothing new and it should have been expected from the beginning

 

[Tr0n]

Hell...we was the ones that stirred the hornets nest. You know what happens when you stir a hornets nest? It's logic...you get stung. Maybe if bush didn't start this bullshit war we wouldn't be in this situation now would we?

 

[Absinthe]

no, i was merely pointing out that this is certainly nothing new and it should have been expected from the beginning

Of those nations you listed, which of them are we engaging in combat with?

 

[Icarusintel]

Of those nations you listed, which of them are we engaging in combat with?

none, but they're nations we engaged in combat with at one point or another

 

[Absinthe]

none, but they're nations we engaged in combat with at one point or another

Whigh brings me back to my original point: the situations are different.

Those nations you listed are/were organized under an institution and leadership. When they fall, it's game over. The insurgents/terorists in Iraq have no such structure. They consist of numerous factions both domestic and foreign. They have no unified strategy nor a singular entity that could be identified as a leader. The only commonalities they have are their general intent and their methods.

This "war", if it can be termed as such, is neither conventional nor well-planned. An indefinite stay will surely be hostile and violent one.

 

[CptStern]

wow, take a history course and come back, we've kept troops in most of the nations we've gone into in some form or another, this is nothing new
for examples see Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.

you need to watch this ...simplfies everything ...watch it start to finish please

 

[Top Secret]

Yeah, that video is 100% accurate, I don't care about Brittain, or France. I wish we would invade them right now. Come on Stern. O_O That video is just Anti-American propoghanda. You think the US is so powerful? Sure, it's the most powerful nation in the world, but we're still a giant among giants. If we attacked France, Europe would turn into an interconnected war machine, and decimate America. Our leaders may be power hungry, but they're not going to attempt world domination. A good offense, is a good defense. Yeah, it goes too far. Afghanistan was a response to the WTC, I think everyone knows that. Why we're in Iraq, ask Bush and the other oil bath takers. I think the republican party is screwing itself over. 32%? I can't imagine how a Democrate/Inependent won't win when the next election comes around. And that will be long before America owns the world. I really love how the English guy blames America, when Brittain is there. You could argue that not all English people want to be there (obviously) but the same is for the Americans. In fact, most don't want to be there. And if most don't want to be there, we're not going to be when someone new gets into office.

 

[Absinthe]

I believe that when he referenced France and Britain, he was citing them as potential targets in the future. In other words: everybody is fair game.

That said, the video is largely conjecture and I wouldn't treat as a factual and reliable source. Simply food for thought.

 

[CptStern]

I believe that when he referenced France and Britain, he was citing them as potential targets in the future. In other words: everybody is fair game.

yes

That said, the video is largely conjecture and I wouldn't treat as a factual and reliable source. Simply food for thought.

it's supported by a few documents:


extremely lengthy indepth US document outlining goals for the near future

PNAC

Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century

 

[Absinthe]

I have no doubt that it stems from facts. But a fair deal of it is supposition.

That's not to say it doesn't have any worth.

 

[Top Secret]

I believe that when he referenced France and Britain, he was citing them as potential targets in the future. In other words: everybody is fair game.

Yeah, that's what I said. I'm just saying, the US isn't going to invade France or Britain.

 

[jabberwock95]

Yeah, that's what I said. I'm just saying, the US isn't going to invade France or Britain.

Well, America was Iraq's 'ally' not that long ago.

But I doubt America would invade a country that actually has weapons of mass destruction. Too dangerous.

 

[Puzzlemaker]

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING

Alright.

I am personally from the USA.

And, I personally, am Pissed. I dont like this whole, "Go blow everything up" thing, I dont like this whole, "Lets go piss people off to the point where they attack us because we are trying to force our culture on them, and they dont like it" stuff either.

Now, I have noticed that a lot of other countries consider the USA to be gun-happy corperate conservatives.

That is TRUE, to an extent. BUT!
Whats also true is that we are a democracy. Which means that the people in america have the ability to VOTE, and to CHANGE THINGS. And we have a free press, or as free a press can be; A lot of big press corperations recieve "Funding" from other corperations... But, Yes, we have a truly free press now, because ANYONE with internet connection and a little bit of know-how can post their opinion on the web now.

All this means is that the public really does have a big say in the matter now.

So I dont think the USA will start any new world-wars anytime soon, or stuff like that. So stop freaking out about it. Please.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/

That is a good example of what free press can do; A man in new orleans started a blog about the disaster, somehow managing to keep his internet up. Now it has thousands of readers, looking through a live web-cam, availible to anyone, at ground zero. It's quite amazing.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It doesn't fully make sense. I expect probably to be granted some area for military bases- we have consistantly throughout our history in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc etc, but I don't expect the occupation to after the Iraqi government asks us to leave, and the occupation, rather than troops being at a base there, is the question.

It's not affording us any gains to hold an imperialism. It doesn't even make sense on an economic scale, we're not gaining anything. The losses incurred (and yes, in the long run too and for any sense of 'control' which is not in our hands in the first place) outweigh any gains.

As for that video (forgot about that, saw it a long time ago when you posted it), US War on Terror is operating on what, we at least, see as a justified endevour. I see it as the third World War and many others do, also.

As for myself now, and many others, including the Corporatist Party and large groups of others like sections of the Republicans and right wing groups that supported the Iraqi campaign - we see that we can't afford to continue to push outside of our borders for issues related to that. There's a rising quasi isolationist movement brewing in America, and most people agree with the principles just now how to go about it. But I can definately sympathize far more greatly with Iraq War protestor's who's logic encompasses the fact that we need to focus on more internal problems to strengthen the United States and that we can't afford to continue to be a policeman GLOBALLY, when much is eroding here at home. I think the hurricane highlights that fact, we had a lot of government trouble with that at a local level and somewhat federal, not due to resources not being in America (some would say oh, NG are in Iraq that's why, but we had more than enough troops in the region) but because the beaurocratic mess that resulted.

We'll definately have Air Bases and other military assetts there for years and we should to have a force able to respond quickly to immediate threats. But like I said, that's not the occupation, it'll end if not by Iraqis asking us to end it first but then by Americans eventually turning towards ending it. One who thinks it is should think we're also occupying all those former WWII nations then.

 

[Glirk Dient]

FYI we have troops stationed in just about every country indefinately. Should we pull all of them out too? What about Japan?

 

[Top Secret]

Well, America was Iraq's 'ally' not that long ago.

But I doubt America would invade a country that actually has weapons of mass destruction. Too dangerous.

Iraq's ally? More like under the table business partner.

And now, America has sent out the message "If you have WMD, we're not going to invade you. If you don't, we will." It's backfired.

And now ofcourse North Korea went "Oh shits!" and now they have WMD.

 

[CptStern]

Iraq's ally? More like under the table business partner.

And now, America has sent out the message "If you have WMD, we're not going to invade you. If you don't, we will." It's backfired.

And now ofcourse North Korea went "Oh shits!" and now they have WMD.

no, they were definately allies ..in fact the US helped saddam during the iran-iraq war ...that's usually what allies do

 

[Solaris]

http://www.knife-party.net/flash/barry.html

QFT
6char

 

[SAJ]

no, they were definately allies ..in fact the US helped saddam during the iran-iraq war ...that's usually what allies do

It seems pedantic but ,no, US and Iraq wernt allies.
An alliance would require a mutual declaration.
The US backed Iraq against Iran but that doesnt constitute an alliace.
Just as sleeping with a prostitute doesnt make her your wife.

(Sorry about the misogynistic analogy, it just popped into my head)

 

[Icarusintel]

you need to watch this ...simplfies everything ...watch it start to finish please

wow, if this was true, then why hasn't the world stopped us yet if it's so clearly visible? only a very small minority of americans like war, but you'll find that anywhere... this video is scare-mongering at its finest, and what scares me is you seem to take it as absolute truth, if so you might wanna move south, since obviously the US is gonna dominate everything very soon, might as well come on down before you get killed

 

[Solaris]

The reason the world hasnt stopped you, is becuase the peasentry hasnt othertrown the establishment yet. Don't worry though, the time will come.

 

[clarky003]

this video is scare-mongering at its finest

That video isnt scare mongering, The dominance of the military industrial complex thrives on the war machine to drive profit's and the economy. It's more than just a war on 'terror' the onion has many layer's, and that video is a true understanding of those other layers. Just because you dont see it as being that deep and complex doesnt get rid of the fact... I find it quite sad that you cant see whats happening or that you know and cant accept it. It's ultimately influenced by your inability to see how corrupt the system actually is, and the primary driving forces that are in operation. (hidden to those who are blinded by the overwhelming media coverage of the onions top layer)

 

[The Monkey]

It seems pedantic but ,no, US and Iraq wernt allies.
An alliance would require a mutual declaration.
The US backed Iraq against Iran but that doesnt constitute an alliace.
Just as sleeping with a prostitute doesnt make her your wife.

(Sorry about the misogynistic analogy, it just popped into my head)

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are both dictatorships, but they're still you're allies. You were allies with Afghanistan and the Talibans during the Soviet-Afghan war. You also supported Batista on Cuba just because he was anti-socialist. Pinochet in Chile because, he too, was anti-socialist. Other anti-socialist dictators that were supported by the US include Noriega in Panama, Banzer in Bolivia, Cerezo in Guatemala and Cordova in Honduras.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

He didn't really say anything about not being a democracy disbarring you from being an ally, he just said there was no treaty of alliance between Iraq and the US.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

if it stops terrorists from roaming free killing innocents, its all good

How can you stop a terrorist from blowing himself up, thats kind of ironic, wouldn't you say

If border patrol in the US was crap they would do the same there

 

[Icarusintel]

That video isnt scare mongering, The dominance of the military industrial complex thrives on the war machine to drive profit's and the economy. It's more than just a war on 'terror' the onion has many layer's, and that video is a true understanding of those other layers. Just because you dont see it as being that deep and complex doesnt get rid of the fact... I find it quite sad that you cant see whats happening or that you know and cant accept it. It's ultimately influenced by your inability to see how corrupt the system actually is, and the primary driving forces that are in operation. (hidden to those who are blinded by the overwhelming media coverage of the onions top layer)

i understand there is a military-industrial complex in america, but that doesn;t mean we're gonna start WWIII, statements like that just make people paranoid

 

[CptStern]

i understand there is a military-industrial complex in america, but that doesn;t mean we're gonna start WWIII, statements like that just make people paranoid

dont take things so literally ..the video alludes to PNAC's vision of a global pax americana that may lead to to ww3 ..seriously, watch more than just the first 10 seconds ...there's nothing they say in the video that isnt contained here

 

[clarky003]

Every time I read that, It disturb's me.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

A country that cant resolve its own problems has no place in attempting to solve other's problem's no matter how rich or powerful, the target's encroach on civil liberties, and is fascist in the very nature of the idea.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Every time I read that, It disturb's me.



A country that cant resolve its own problems has no place in attempting to solve other's problem's no matter how rich or powerful, the target's encroach on civil liberties, and is fashist in the very nature of the idea.

I may agree that we need to focus on America first for the sake of Americans and bettering ourselves, but you're wrong in saying we're abusing anyone's civil liberties. Using fascist as an epithet is also dumb, there's a lot of groups out there in Fascist name (not Nazi like Stormfront bafoons) as per the original ideology of the 1920's and if anything they're highly anti Iraq-war.

 

[MjM]

OK replace fascist with fear espousing imperialist regime?

Spot the difference
http://www.fascistmovement.com/ - http://www.corporatistparty.org/

Thats why he knows fascists are anti-war