Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Full Story (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html)

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 :(

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Full Story (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html)

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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_

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.

If Obama gets in, can he not undo the deal?

Nothing is set in stone, right?

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).

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.

I like the way Bush thinks! :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)...

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'.

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).

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?

I agree with Achilles: It'll be interesting to see if the bases are near any of the Oil Pipelines. ;)
Map of oil pipelines (http://www.iags.org/iraq-map-large.gif)
Map of current major base camps and forward operating bases (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/iraq-fobs-2005apr21.jpg)

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? :rolleyes: It only makes sense.

Map of oil pipelines (http://www.iags.org/iraq-map-large.gif)
Map of current major base camps and forward operating bases (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/iraq-fobs-2005apr21.jpg)

*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. ;)

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.

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.

Because those commodities are the only valuable thing in Iraq unless someone devises a sand-based power plant. Besides, I think you know the mantra.

'The Oil must flow.'

Because those commodities are the only valuable thing in Iraq unless someone devises a sand-based power plant. Besides, I think you know the mantra.

'The Oil must flow.'

I realize that.
What I was asking was: why is the United States government so bent on pilfering that oil?
Face it, the Iraqis will set the price for the oil when they begin exporting. Its not like the American army can just siphon the gas while they're there.
Plus, why does the oil need to be protected by us? The Iraqis know that oil is their greatest asset and its government will use all its resources to protect it.

Personally, I feel that Bush wants to pass this accord so that we can get a foothold in the middle east. Oil isn't the primary reason.

Safe to say I'm not surprised. =)

All it's resources? We are talking about a country in RUINS. This place can be charitably described as 'Hell on a Cracker', and it's got the psychotic inhabitants to populate it.

I realize that all of this could be considered 'coincidental,' and is different to each person. It's all about interpretation. ;)I think it's rather difficult to defend the argument that we aren't there for oil when a vast majority of our bases seems to be within a short distance of an oil pipeline. The whole, "oh no, we're only here to free these oppressed people and spread democracy" spiel kinda falls apart in light of the facts.

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.

I don't think that you're seeing my point. We went into Iraq based off of the 'intelligence' that Hussein was harboring 'terrorists' and "Weapon of Mass Destruction." We went to Iraq to 'liberate' their people, not their oil. And what are we going for now? *Points to Achilles' posts above*

Not only is this completely contradictory in nature (protecting an object rather than people), but it shows that the current administration is either...

1) ...a completely incompetent, bumbling composition of selfish People...

...or...

2) ...a 'puppet-administration,' following orders from someone (or a group of people) from somewhere else in the world/country. Goodness, I wish I had a President with a mind of his/her own and a will.

Or maybe that they're just realistic and realize that we can actually liberate the country and strengthen America's position simultaneously?

We never actually signed and ratified the Kyoto treaty, so there was nothing to w/drawl from in the first place. Never said we did, but we did have a say in the negotiation of the treaty. We also never ratified the tobacco treaty, but we were involved in the negotiation and insisted that it be as watered down as possible. Seems if the U.S. is to negotiate in good faith, they must actually think there is a possibility of passage. If all we are going to do is water down the treaty then perhaps we should stay out of the negotiations if we do not intend to try to ratify the treaty.

We also did not pull out of the ABM Treaty because the USSR no longer existed; we pulled out because a missile defense system was illegal under the terms of the treaty. If it were legal, we would be expecting Russia to follow the terms of the treaty.

Or maybe that they're just realistic and realize that we can actually liberate the country and strengthen America's position simultaneously?

I think I understand where you're coming from, but (to me) it's an illogical reason. You say that we are "liberating" (Iraq), and are simultaneously strengthen our Global Standing? That would be great, except for the pretenses under which we invaded.

The Bush Administration told the American Public (who, may I add, were swept up in the fury of September Eleventh) that Saddam was harboring 'terrorists' and "Weapons of Mass Destruction." This was, as we know now, a blatant lie. Bush used one of the lowest times in American History to bring us into War, and now we're going to have a tough time getting out.

So, therefore, the logic by which you are basing your claim is false. It would make sense if we were freeing a country that was under the command of an evil dictator for genuine reasons, then it would make sense. However, the Bush Administration is more concerned with the commodity of Oil, and would rather have it then help the Iraqi People.

Or maybe that they're just realistic and realize that we can actually liberate the country and strengthen America's position simultaneously?

I believe what you're talking about is called occupation. You can't liberate a country and then fortify your own military position and thus your control in said country.

Sure you can. You just peel one thumb off and put yours in it's place.

Sure you can. You just peel one thumb off and put yours in it's place.

thats still occupation and oppression. There is no liberty and freedom when you are under somebody's thumb, REGARDLESS of who's thumb it may be.

Strengthening one's position would be to ally yourselves with the people in the area. An enemy you've made a friend is an enemy you don't have to fight, what better solution for people you didn't like than having them WILLINGLY fight for you?

A nation cannot be an island in today's world. Military power makes us only a naive and foolish nation, to believe that we can run the world through strength of arms has been tried, tested, and failed on every account. We are no exception.

Military power makes us only a naive and foolish nation, to believe that we can run the world through strength of arms has been tried, tested, and failed on every account. We are no exception.Empires don't tend to go all quiet and pretty-like when they do either :(

Empires don't tend to go all quiet and pretty-like when they do either :(

no, and unforunately the fall of the US will cause major shockwaves in the rest of the world.

What substantiation do we have for this article? None. Zip. Zilch.

Fifty bases sounds like a ridiculously high number to me. Anyone can say "oh, I have information leaked from the Pentagon" and make an article out of it to inflame the masses willing to believe any anti-American thing that they read.

What substantiation do we have for this article? None. Zip. Zilch. Critical thinking when it's convenient. Love it.

So the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman29nov29,0,3241305.story) (11/07), NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18368586) (01/08), and The Independent (first post) have been covering a completely made-up story for months?

Funny that when we talk about something and want a source, we usually look to some sort of reputable media outlet. When a reputable media outlet breaks a story, Jae wants a source :D

(hint: it's call investigative journalism for a reason ;)).

Fifty bases sounds like a ridiculously high number to me. Might seem high to the Iraqis too. Could explain why al-Maliki is pushing back. Doesn't mean Bush didn't ask for them though.

Anyone can say "oh, I have information leaked from the Pentagon" and make an article out of it to inflame the masses willing to believe any anti-American thing that they read. Yes anyone can. But generally an editor will only push a story if the source is reliable. This is how newspapers avoid getting sued the Federal government and stuff.

Critical thinking when it's convenient. Love it.

Think that's quite harsh on Jae there my friend.

All it's resources? We are talking about a country in RUINS. This place can be charitably described as 'Hell on a Cracker', and it's got the psychotic inhabitants to populate it.

Indeed and who made it that way?

Empires don't tend to go all quiet and pretty-like when they do either.

The British Empire went pretty quietly :p (Although admittedly two world wars, were a contributing factor in its decline).

no, and unforunately the fall of the US will cause major shockwaves in the rest of the world.

I'm not so sure, it will be interesting to see how globalisation and the fall of the established order effects things when it happens.

So the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman29nov29,0,3241305.story) (11/07), NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18368586) (01/08), and The Independent (first post) have been covering a completely made-up story for months? I didn't say it was made up. You didn't include those articles.

Yes anyone can. But generally an editor will only push a story if the source is reliable. This is how newspapers avoid getting sued the Federal government and stuff.
Tell that to the NY Times. Their editors allowed stories through that were written with made-up facts. Some of the stories were just outright fiction. CBS did a great job with Dan Rather's 'oops' too.

Fifty bases sounds like a ridiculously high number to me. Anyone can say "oh, I have information leaked from the Pentagon" and make an article out of it to inflame the masses willing to believe any anti-American thing that they read. I hope you are talking about those outside the United States seeing this article as being anti-American. Because I do not consider the article anti-American no more than I saw the attacks of President Clinton, President Reagan, President Carter or even President Nixon as anti-American. Personally, if I stuck my head in the sand and believed everything my government said that I would be anti-American. The founding fathers design this government for the people to actively participate, even though they did not fully trust the people. In fairness the founding fathers did not fully trust the government either or they would not have designed the checks and balances the way the did. I just believe questioning my government’s policy or even proposed policies is not anti-American.

I didn't say it was made up. You didn't include those articles. Tell that to the NY Times. Their editors allowed stories through that were written with made-up facts. So we should disregard this story by the New York Times entitled “U.S. Not Seeking Permanent Iraq Bases, Ambassador Says”? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/world/middleeast/05cnd-crocker.html?ref=world)

From the articles, I have read I would say neither side is telling the truth. The Bush administration is saying they are not seeking any permanent bases (I tend to believe this, but that does not mean they are not seeking bases there until the Iraqi oil supply is depleted.) The Iraqi’s are saying 50 and permanent.

The British Empire went pretty quietly :p (Although admittedly two world wars, were a contributing factor in its decline). Depends on how you look at it, I guess. From a "leveling London was the beginning of the end" perspective, I think you could say that it did not go quietly. To your point though, the draw-down was rather uneventful in comparison to others. :)

I didn't say it was made up.You're right, you did not use those exact words.

You didn't include those articles.And that changes what?

FWIW, I did point out that this was part of an ongoing story in the first post.

Tell that to the NY Times. Their editors allowed stories through that were written with made-up facts. Some of the stories were just outright fiction. CBS did a great job with Dan Rather's 'oops' too.There are always exceptions. I think we need more than your incredulity/new-found skepticism to establish that this case is one of them.

I do think that it would be a display of breathtaking ineptitude though to learn that every news source covering this particular story for the past 7-8 months has been fabricating information, as you seem to want to imply.

Mostly the insurgents made it that way, but I won't deny that the magnificent glory of the M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank caused a fair bit of damage too, along with the rest of our beautiful military technology. The fact remains, however, that the only thing valuable in Iraq is it's oil. It's been that way for some considerable period of time.

We have bases in Germany and Japan. Are we still in unending conflict with them?
Agreed. I personally think that we have to be big brother in Iraq. Regardless about how we got there, I think we need to take a serious look at the country. Once someone new comes into office, the dirty laundry of President Bush will be revealed. I personally believe that Bush needs to be put on trial, so we can get the whole truth out in the open. When I think back on election 2000, we needed Bush to remove the unhumbled Gore. Within this election cycle, we need an unbiased individual to evalutate and scruitinaize Iraq. Obama doesn't have any military logic, which would help him see the pros and cons of Iraq. Bush is attempting to keep himself out of trouble.

You're right, you did not use those exact words.Nor did I imply it. Did you consider the option that I was also considering someone quoting a bad source? Apparently not.

And that changes what?My perception of your source.

FWIW, I did point out that this was part of an ongoing story in the first post. And your point is?

There are always exceptions. I think we need more than your incredulity/new-found skepticism to establish that this case is one of them. Are you always like this, or is this just one of your good days?

I do think that it would be a display of breathtaking ineptitude though to learn that every news source covering this particular story for the past 7-8 months has been fabricating information, as you seem to want to imply.Did I say all of them were fabricating? No, I said the NYTimes and CBS had fabricated. My trust in news organizations is not that high after seeing what seems to be a problem in at least 2 of what had been highly respected news organizations.

Outside of the US, there are under 50 US permanent bases _total_ around the world. There are 201 bases in the US (barring any changes made since the wiki entry was written). If there are less than 50 total bases scattered around the world, why would the US suddenly put 50 permanent bases into one single country smaller than the size of Texas?

If you include all the minor installations like weather stations, ranges, fueling depots, and other minor facilities, the number of overseas installations goes up dramatically, on the order of hundreds. However, the article you quote specifies "bases", not "installations". There is a big difference in terminology with that. Either the source is wrong, the writer quoted the source incorrectly, somewhere along the line someone didn't double check their facts to get the proper terminology, or the author is artificially manipulating the terminology to make it sound like something it really shouldn't be. Furthermore, Bush can make all the deals in the world he wants with respect to the military, but next January we'll have a different Commander-in-Chief, and I'm sure either Obama or McCain will have their own orders for the military.

Nor did I imply it.At this point it seems that you would prefer to insult my intelligence.

My perception of your source.Maybe I should have let you rant a little longer then *shrugs*

And your point is? That had you chosen to, you could have done a little leg work of your own.

Are you always like this, or is this just one of your good days? Like what? Bemused by which topics you choose approach with skepticism as compared to which topics you don't? Yes, I'm always like that.

Did I say all of them were fabricating? No, I said the NYTimes and CBS had fabricated. My trust in news organizations is not that high after seeing what seems to be a problem in at least 2 of what had been highly respected news organizations.Neither NY Times or CBS were mentioned except by you and only to point out that news organizations can sometimes be unreliable (a point which you raise again here). So either you were addressing a specific example or you were not. If you were, then it doesn't really apply and now that we acknowledge that and we can move on. If it was something more general, then that's okay too, but saying that it isn't when it sure does seem that it is only causes us to waste time while we play "Guess What Jae Really Means".

Outside of the US, there are under 50 US permanent bases _total_ around the world. There are 201 bases in the US (barring any changes made since the wiki entry was written). If there are less than 50 total bases scattered around the world, why would the US suddenly put 50 permanent bases into one single country smaller than the size of Texas? I'm guessing that it might have something to do with 1) oil and 2) strategic/tactical advantages.

Maybe we could ask PNAC to tell us why they want it so bad and then we can add their list to ours.

If you include all the minor installations like weather stations, ranges, fueling depots, and other minor facilities, the number of overseas installations goes up dramatically, on the order of hundreds. However, the article you quote specifies "bases", not "installations". There is a big difference in terminology with that. Either the source is wrong, the writer quoted the source incorrectly, somewhere along the line someone didn't double check their facts to get the proper terminology, or the author is artificially manipulating the terminology to make it sound like something it really shouldn't be. You missed one:
or Bush really does want 50 bases there.

I agree that all of these possibilities are valid.

Furthermore, Bush can make all the deals in the world he wants with respect to the military, but next January we'll have a different Commander-in-Chief, and I'm sure either Obama or McCain will have their own orders for the military.Which wouldn't change the fact that he's doing this now. I think mimartin makes a pretty good arguement above that it might look bad if one President makes a treaty (illegally, but that's beside the point) and then another doesn't uphold it.

Perhaps this is just me but you seem to be getting quite hot under the collar here and getting a bit snappy with one another... Lets all have a listen to this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXN9r6tPgHU)

:)

Aren't you a little young for Orbital? :p

I'm a little young for Beethoven and Mozart too, but still listen to them ;) My music taste is very varied, Queen, U2 or Rage Against the Machine would be my top 3 favourite bands as an example.