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

Wow. Fall of the US. WWIII (has noone played BF2142 here?). Sand-powered power plants and lots o' glass.
At first I said, "Do you really think the President will take control of Iraq? The American public hates him just for still BEING there." But then, he practically has control already. Who know, as well, what's going on in those 'talks". Just, you can never be sure.
*blows Christmas ornament in middle of desert* of course "spreading democrary" is crap of an excuse. Even if that was, no country has the right to stick its oversized nose in other people's buisness that way. I thought that the government believed the whole "Weapons of Mass Destruction" thing though. Well, I could be wrong. Going to war for oil won't really solve anything, nor, regrettably, will changing Presidents, no matter how much power they still have. Except maybe if Ron Paul becomes President. The media thinks he's invisible, but I have heard great things about him. Well, no, that won't be enough. Regrettably, I can't get YouTube to work for me right now, so I don't know what that video says... man.

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.

The way you crafted your argument suggested otherwise. No harm in w/drawing from a negotiation that ultimately isn't in your best interests. A deal for the sake of a deal is profoundly foolish. The whole point of entering negotiations is to craft a treaty as closely as you can to your own interests (whether you're the US or any nation). If that fails, you pull out. As to the IBM treaty, it died before the ABM system was truly an issue b/c the USSR collapsed in the early 1990s. Also, we had the right to w/drawl from that treaty anyway.

At this point it seems that you would prefer to insult my intelligence.You don't like being called on putting up a bad article, so I guess you think this kind of tactic will be more effective?

That had you chosen to, you could have done a little leg work of your own. As you are so fond of saying to me, the burden of proof is on you. It's your argument, you do the legwork.

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".The days when you could rely on reporters to present information without an (obvious) agenda are gone. There is the distinct possibility that this particular reporter is either grossly misinformed or is pushing his agenda.

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. I don't doubt for a moment that the US seeks to have some kind of presence in Iraq, just as the US has done in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. I'm disputing this silly notion of 50 permanent bases, not whether we'll have a presence there or not.

You missed one:
or Bush really does want 50 bases there.I didn't miss it at all. I discounted it as either a mistake or an attempt to mislead on the part of the source or reporter, mistake being the more likely of the two. It could very easily be the incorrect usage of 'base' when they meant 'installation', but since the author specified 'permanent bases' I don't know if that's the case or not.

Increasing the number of overseas bases by over 100%, and increasing our military base size by 20% when we've been closing bases, makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, is Congress going to approve the necessary appropriations to increase overseas base numbers by over 100%, with all those going into one single country? I think you'd see ice in hell before that happened in this Congress.

I agree that all of these possibilities are valid.Then why are you choosing to believe the one option that makes no sense from a base number and financing standpoint?

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.
That's again assuming that Bush is even doing that. I would hope that future Presidents wouldn't condone illegal treaties.

You don't like being called on putting up a bad article, so I guess you think this kind of tactic will be more effective? It's a bad article? When did we establish this?

As you are so fond of saying to me, the burden of proof is on you. It's your argument, you do the legwork.Wrong context, Jae. We're discussing the amount of research you did before posting, not the veracity of the article. Since you stated that the additional articles changed your perspective, that means that the articles were meaningful to the discussion. You certainly could have found them on your own without my having posted them for you.

I don't think the proposition is unreasonable considering that I made reference to this being an ongoing story in the very first post. My instinct would have been to find out more before posting, but I am also aware that I do things differently than a lot of people.

The days when you could rely on reporters to present information without an (obvious) agenda are gone. There is the distinct possibility that this particular reporter is either grossly misinformed or is pushing his agenda. Ok. Thank you for clarifying that you were speaking in general terms.

Yes, you are right to be skeptical, but I think that similar reporting from several other news outlets would counters your "this particular reporter" argument above.

PS: I saw a new article this morning that has quotes directly from Iraqi officials, however the news service I saw it on had cycled in some new headlines between when I left the house and when I got to work. If I can find it again, I'll post the article.

I don't doubt for a moment that the US seeks to have some kind of presence in Iraq, just as the US has done in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc. I'm disputing this silly notion of 50 permanent bases, not whether we'll have a presence there or not.Pretty sure that when I label things as "silly", I get PMs from the staff. Why the double-standard, LucasForums?

I didn't miss it at all. I discounted it as either a mistake or an attempt to mislead on the part of the source or reporter, mistake being the more likely of the two. It could very easily be the incorrect usage of 'base' when they meant 'installation', but since the author specified 'permanent bases' I don't know if that's the case or not. I don't think that decision is yours. You've made your opinion clear, but that does not make it fact.

Increasing the number of overseas bases by over 100%, and increasing our military base size by 20% when we've been closing bases, makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, is Congress going to approve the necessary appropriations to increase overseas base numbers by over 100%, with all those going into one single country? I think you'd see ice in hell before that happened in this Congress. Many of the "bases" are Iraqi military installations that we would be taking over. I don't think we have firm numbers on how many of them would be "new".

And if you'd like to start a thread about things that our government does even when it doesn't make sense, let me know :D

Then why are you choosing to believe the one option that makes no sense from a base number and financing standpoint? Why am I not willing to rule out options arbitarily? Because I don't have a good reason to do so.

For the record, I "believe" all of the options.

That's again assuming that Bush is even doing that. I would hope that future Presidents wouldn't condone illegal treaties.I agree on both your points.

You don't like being called on putting up a bad article, so I guess you think this kind of tactic will be more effective?

Curious as to why this is a bad article...? From what i can see it's fairly legit and with a little research verifiable.

Guardian... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/08/iraq.usa)UK) Paper...April, 2008

The Kind-of Beginning (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html)...Whitehouse.gov...November) 2007

People Protesting Agreement (http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/7755.htm)...blog...2008)

Potential Reasons for the Pact (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2008/06/707A0592-4B00-44BA-9F9F-7B157D66AA39.html)...Interview...June) 2008

McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html)...US) Paper...June, 2008

interesting quote from McClatchy...

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

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.

Curious as to what definition you are using for base and installation (Ideally with verifiable references). From what I can see the terms are quite often used interchangeably or that an installation is actually a type of base. For Example...A Military Loan site...

Link (http://themilitaryzone.com/foreign_bases.html)

A list of "Installations" however it also has the name of "bases" in the list of "installations"...?

McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html)...US) Paper...June, 2008Ooo, that's the one I saw this morning. Thank you for the link (and the quote). :)

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

Depends on how you interpret expansion. Are US forces going to be spread out across "54-8" bases versus the current 30 or so or are they implying US forces are going to increase commensurately to ~2x their current number? Seems that the increase in numbers of bases (what type...firebases?, forts?...) may have more to do with spreading existing troops out to cover ground more efficiently.

Seems that the increase in numbers of bases (what type...firebases?, forts?...) may have more to do with spreading existing troops out to cover ground more efficiently.

I would have to agree that this is what they mean/would do. Given the pressure to reduce our troop numbers in Iraq I think it's close to the only option now that I think about it, but that's assuming they are serious about decreasing our troop presence in Iraq.

As to what types of bases they would be...your guess is as good as mine...maybe better. :)

It's a bad article? When did we establish this?OK, that was a bad choice of wording on my part. Having some incorrect or poorly defined terms doesn't make the entire article bad, so I'm sorry about that.

You certainly could have found them on your own without my having posted them for you. I could have. It's still your job if you're trying to support your points.

I don't think the proposition is unreasonable considering that I made reference to this being an ongoing story in the very first post. My instinct would have been to find out more before posting, but I am also aware that I do things differently than a lot of people. 'On-going story' means to me that it's that author's or news organization's own series. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's 'on-going' for other news sources. An on-going story could have been exclusive to that particular newspaper.

Pretty sure that when I label things as "silly", I get PMs from the staff.Except I wasn't labeling _you_ as silly, or even necessarily referring to you in that comment.


Yes, you are right to be skeptical, but I think that similar reporting from several other news outlets would counters your "this particular reporter" argument above. Fair enough--I'll give you that point.

I don't think that decision is yours. You've made your opinion clear, but that does not make it fact. None of it's 'fact' anyway at this point--it's hearsay from an unnamed source.

Many of the "bases" are Iraqi military installations that we would be taking over. I don't think we have firm numbers on how many of them would be "new". They'd have to be brought up to US standards. Renovation costs a lot, too.

And if you'd like to start a thread about things that our government does even when it doesn't make sense, let me know :D:lol: Actually, that would be a lot of fun. I understand that the government does any number of incredibly stupid things.

Why am I not willing to rule out options arbitarily? Because I don't have a good reason to do so.
For the record, I "believe" all of the options. I view some of them on a continuum of 'more plausible vs. less plausible'. Bush making a secret, quasi-legal treaty that would increase the military budget dramatically when we both know Congress would never fund it falls into the 'less plausible' section on that continuum.

I agree on both your points.Shh--don't tell people that. That'll send them into shock and we might have to do CPR or something. :D

Sorry if I sound crabby. I'm having a singularly awful week, but that doesn't mean you deserve being snapped at.

Curious as to what definition you are using for base and installation (Ideally with verifiable references). From what I can see the terms are quite often used interchangeably or that an installation is actually a type of base. For Example...A Military Loan site...
fort - a fortified military post where troops are stationed.
garrison
military post, post - military installation at which a body of troops is stationed;
In general, a military base provides accommodations for one or more units, but it may also be used as a command center, a training ground, or a proving ground. In most cases, a military base relies on some outside help in order to operate. However, certain complex bases are able to endure by themselves for long periods because they are able to provide food, water and other life support necessities for their inhabitants while under siege.
It's the other way around--a base is a type of installation. However, an installation is not necessarily a base/fort. Installation is the broad term, base/fort is a more specific sub-type of installation. Bases or forts garrison troops, while installations provide support to the military in some way (e.g. weather stations, fuel depots, and so forth), but don't necessarily have units of troops. My brother-in-law was part of the installation that guarded the US consulate in Germany, but that installation did not house a unit so it was not called a base/fort.

OK, that was a bad choice of wording on my part. Having some incorrect or poorly defined terms doesn't make the entire article bad, so I'm sorry about that. But you don't know that it was incorrect or poorly worded. You only suspect that it is. That doesn't make it so.

I could have. It's still your job if you're trying to support your points.I don't see how your assumptions regarding the substantiation of the article have anything to do with me. No one forced you make them, Jae. I am certainly not responsible for them.

'On-going story' means to me that it's that author's or news organization's own series. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's 'on-going' for other news sources. An on-going story could have been exclusive to that particular newspaper. I appreciate you sharing with me how you define that term. I will make an honest effort to keep that in mind next time I consider using it so as to avoid potential confusion.

Except I wasn't labeling _you_ as silly, or even necessarily referring to you in that comment.I repeat: "Pretty sure that when I label things as 'silly', I get PMs from the staff."

Double-standard, Jae. If it's okay when you do it, then it's okay when anyone else does it too. If it's "snark" or "unfriendly" when one of us does it, then it's those things when you do it too, Jae.

If we are going by what we say about things, then I think you owe me one heck of an apology for the run-around you've given me in the past.

Fair enough--I'll give you that point. Thank you.

None of it's 'fact' anyway at this point--it's hearsay from an unnamed source. I am not sure how this is related to the point that I made, but I repeat my earlier agreement that some degree of skepticism is prudent.

They'd have to be brought up to US standards. Renovation costs a lot, too.That doesn't tell me anything. It only tells me that it would be expensive. It doesn't tell me that the story isn't true.

:lol: Actually, that would be a lot of fun. I understand that the government does any number of incredibly stupid things. Just not this, right? This is your argument, correct?

I view some of them on a continuum of 'more plausible vs. less plausible'. Bush making a secret, quasi-legal treaty that would increase the military budget dramatically when we both know Congress would never fund it falls into the 'less plausible' section on that continuum. Same argument that I made above. This doesn't tell me that Bush isn't trying to do this.

Shh--don't tell people that. That'll send them into shock and we might have to do CPR or something. :D You'll have to do it: my certification expired years ago. ;)

Sorry if I sound crabby. I'm having a singularly awful week, but that doesn't mean you deserve being snapped at. I hope things get better for you soon.

It's the other way around--a base is a type of installation. However, an installation is not necessarily a base/fort. Installation is the broad term, base/fort is a more specific sub-type of installation. Bases or forts garrison troops, while installations provide support to the military in some way (e.g. weather stations, fuel depots, and so forth), but don't necessarily have units of troops. My brother-in-law was part of the installation that guarded the US consulate in Germany, but that installation did not house a unit so it was not called a base/fort.

So a base is basically defined as a military building that can house units. A unit (or company if you will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_(military_unit))) typically consists of 75 to 200 soldiers. Also, a base can be considered one of the following (citing your own source of wikipedia)


Airbase
yard or shipyard
garrison
station
post
dock
depot
activity
magazine
arsenal
proving ground
armory
fort
camp
barracks
caserne
facility
field
reservation
installation (in the generic)

So having 50 new bases, using any combination of the above, in iraq would mean a minimum of having 3,750 troops in iraq at the new bases (on top of the ones that are already there in our current bases). If each unit were maxed out at 200 (which i doubt considering enrollment figures for the military haven't been great, but regardless) then there would be an additional 10,000 troops in addition to what's already there at least.

Now the question is, with these numbers would it still be considered a reduction in the number of troops if we proceed with the creation of 50 new bases? Looking over the numbers it is possible to do both, assuming the last number I heard for the number of troops we have in Iraq (20,000) is still somewhat accurate.

So, now the question is, why are 50 additional bases in iraq unreasonable?

As for the reason...let's point to the elephant in the room...we want the oil. :)

The bases in that reference are still are military installations; and if there's anything I know about military bases, it's that they're intended for well... 'Military purposes...'

....Now the question is, with these numbers would it still be considered a reduction in the number of troops if we proceed with the creation of 50 new bases? Looking over the numbers it is possible to do both, assuming the last number I heard for the number of troops we have in Iraq (20,000) is still somewhat accurate.



I'm sure there are many who only wish we had a mere 20000 in Iraq. It would make a helluva a lot of sense, though, to set up forces all along the pipeline routes under the current circumstances. Many of the despots in that region would like to see a "democratic" Iraq strangled in its crib. To paraphrase Dune, "oil is life", especially for ANY govt that ends up controlling Iraq.

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.
Iraq has the largest source of oil in the world. The establishment of military bases has been a fancy of military leaders for a long time. Strategically, it gives a foothold in the Middle East for US interests. However the establishment is really a front for the already illegally economic seisure of those resources and that's illegal because our presence there is illegal.

The US has had a history of its foreign policies reflecting its economic interests and political interests. That's why we financed Osama in Afghanistan.

Iraq has the largest source of oil in the world. Are you sure? I thought that was Saudi Arabia.

That's why we financed Osama in Afghanistan.Unfortunately, based on what I've seen, this is debatable. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, but the "evidence" I've seen for this is not rock-solid.

No question that we did finance the mujahideen, but my understanding is that a direct connection to UBL hasn't been established. I would welcome any sources that you have which state otherwise.

Looks like America is trying their hardest to be the most hated country in the world ><

So a base is basically defined as a military building that can house units. A unit (or company if you will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_(military_unit))) typically consists of 75 to 200 soldiers. Also, a base can be considered one of the following (citing your own source of wikipedia)


Airbase
yard or shipyard
garrison
station
post
dock
depot
activity
magazine
arsenal
proving ground
armory
fort
camp
barracks
caserne
facility
field
reservation
installation (in the generic)

So, now the question is, why are 50 additional bases in iraq unreasonable?

As for the reason...let's point to the elephant in the room...we want the oil. :)

A "base", the way the US military uses it for a permanent, staffed facility, typically has at least a brigade (1500-4000 troops) and associated support staff. If you look at the list of forts and bases that the various armed services have, they are all quite a bit bigger than the smaller facilities you listed above. The wiki article is not specific to the US, it also included a discussion of the UK, for instance. The Army differentiates between forts and other installations like ranges and proving grounds. It lists 43 forts on its site. USAF has 65, USN has 54, and the Marines have 9 (some of the Marine bases are part of the USN, hence the low number) bases listed on their home sites. Note that base closures may not have been accounted for on outside sites if you're looking at those. The use of the term 'base' or 'fort' in the US Military is more specific than the way the article writer appears to be using it.

The writer, or his source, could have been a lot more clear if he had just used 'facility' or 'installation'. The way it's written now, the reporter makes it sound like Bush wants to send in 75,000-200,000 troops to Iraq, and a lot more people than that if you include support staff. If the writer did that to influence negative views of the US and/or the war, rather than just report the news (and the Independent has a history of mixing opinion with fact in its paper outside of the obvious editorial columns), I take issue with that. If it's just a mistake, then the author should fix that problem to minimize confusion.

I'll agree with you that oil is the big reason we're there, with perhaps protection of Israel as a distant second reason.

Looks like America is trying their hardest to be the most hated country in the world ><

no, we're not really trying that hard.

A "base", the way the US military uses it for a permanent, staffed facility, typically has at least a brigade (1500-4000 troops) and associated support staff. If you look at the list of forts and bases that the various armed services have, they are all quite a bit bigger than the smaller facilities you listed above. The wiki article is not specific to the US, it also included a discussion of the UK, for instance. The Army differentiates between forts and other installations like ranges and proving grounds. It lists 43 forts on its site. USAF has 65, USN has 54, and the Marines have 9 (some of the Marine bases are part of the USN, hence the low number) bases listed on their home sites. Note that base closures may not have been accounted for on outside sites if you're looking at those. The use of the term 'base' or 'fort' in the US Military is more specific than the way the article writer appears to be using it.

The writer, or his source, could have been a lot more clear if he had just used 'facility' or 'installation'. The way it's written now, the reporter makes it sound like Bush wants to send in 75,000-200,000 troops to Iraq, and a lot more people than that if you include support staff. If the writer did that to influence negative views of the US and/or the war, rather than just report the news (and the Independent has a history of mixing opinion with fact in its paper outside of the obvious editorial columns), I take issue with that. If it's just a mistake, then the author should fix that problem to minimize confusion.

Sources?

I said in my previous post that I had looked at the websites of the various branches themselves. --Jae

To this point your entire post is opinion...which is fine...however, it does nothing to show why the article is invalid as there are no facts stated. If you don't mind, please include some sources for your numbers...also, if you do it may be helpful to include why those sources contradict the sources you used earlier. Thanks!! ;)

Well, as far as the # of bases go, she cites the web sites the various military branches. Having looked at the article from the Independent, I'd have to say that, at least on the point of bases and numbers of men, the reporter is vague. He only really mentions the access to 50 new bases and the current # of men in theatre. Given the overall tone of the article, one could be forgiven for thinking that we'll be basing possibly even more troops (especially if they think the PNAC people --ie neocons--are actually secretly planning to use these "bases" to establish an eventual invasion force for Iran) than currently are in Iraq. Still, the author doesn't really deal with the issues of numbers (probably b/c it wouldn't sufficiently bolster his apparent slant) enough to be overly concerned about such implications just yet. As such, it seems to me that the 135-50K (+/-) troops in Iraq would be spread out across 50-84 bases, rather than the current 35 or so.

This war is the splitting image of Vietnam.

1) The government riles up its people to fear a certain group of people. (Communists / Terrorists)

2) Government invades while telling the people that the only way to stop this threat from spreading is to nip it in the bud there. (Vietnam / Middle-East)

3) The military realize they are fighting a group of people that cannot be challenged with force and tactics: A guerrilla war. Fighting against both armed civilians and insurgents. A gang war, to be more broad. The united states army is trying to fight a force the American Police have been fighting for over a hundred years. (Vietnam forest and cities / Iraq cities)

4) United states takes previous government out of power to place a puppet government in controlled by the United states. (Cold War / War on Terror)

Wanna know what this is leading to? This is leading to all these years of "fighting" to end up with nothing in the end. Two things are going to happen:

Iraq will split into two like Korea, effectively causing more turmoil considering how unstable the middle east is right now.
or
The second we leave Iraq, the previous government will take over again and we will have achieved absolutely nothing in the end.

Just like Vietnam.

The only way we'll keep iraq from going back to its previous ways is to occupy it. Indefinitely. This seems to be Bush's plan, and if he is to achieve his goal of peace in the middle east... that is his only way.

But, this time, we might end up with enough oil to let our cars stay on the road for about 5 years. You can only play the oil game for so long, and if this war is any indication... we are about to hit a very, very dangerous point in our history when we realize our most precious resource is disappearing. What do humans do in that situation? Well... war. Love your peace as it is now, I think the world is about to get a lot more violent in the next 50 years.

Wanna know what this is leading to? This is leading to all these years of "fighting" to end up with nothing in the end. Two things are going to happen:

Iraq will split into two like Korea, effectively causing more turmoil considering how unstable the middle east is right now.
or
The second we leave Iraq, the previous government will take over again and we will have achieved absolutely nothing in the end.

I LOVE the Korea reference when talking about how Iraq is like Vietnam.

Korea got split in two because the Russian and American commanders on the ground didn't want their guys mingling 'cause they worried orders would get mixed up and so on. So they divided it in two, one for the Russians to rebuild, one for the Americans.

It was later that the really really weird leader of Korea kept buggin Stalin to "spread the glory of communism to their southern brothers" But Stalin, not really wanting to press the Americans, told China to help N Korea. China really didn't want to get involved either, but when US forces pushed the N Koreans a little into China, China stepped in.

It is actually an American armed forces mistake(of going a little into China), that caused the Chinese army to REALLY aid N Korea and push back to what is now the dividing line.

This war is the splitting image of Vietnam.

1) The government riles up its people to fear a certain group of people. (Communists / Terrorists)

2) Government invades while telling the people that the only way to stop this threat from spreading is to nip it in the bud there. (Vietnam / Middle-East)

3) The military realize they are fighting a group of people that cannot be challenged with force and tactics: A guerrilla war. Fighting against both armed civilians and insurgents. A gang war, to be more broad. The united states army is trying to fight a force the American Police have been fighting for over a hundred years. (Vietnam forest and cities / Iraq cities)

4) United states takes previous government out of power to place a puppet government in controlled by the United states. (Cold War / War on Terror)

Yes, this War is almost exactly like Vietnam. However, you might notice that the Society in which it takes place (America, to be exact) is incredibly apathetic, and doesn't seem to care what its leaders are doing (besides the few protests, that sprout up once in a while).

Wanna know what this is leading to? This is leading to all these years of "fighting" to end up with nothing in the end. Two things are going to happen:

Iraq will split into two like Korea, effectively causing more turmoil considering how unstable the middle east is right now.
or
The second we leave Iraq, the previous government will take over again and we will have achieved absolutely nothing in the end.

Just like Vietnam.

Yeah. We're in the same quagmire that we were in half-a-century ago, except this time, we're not protesting very often. If I were in charge of the citizens today, I would have overrun the White House long ago. That might not be the perfect tactic, but I'd like to see Bush's response to a non-apathetic society. :p

The only way we'll keep Iraq from going back to its previous ways is to occupy it. Indefinitely. This seems to be Bush's plan, and if he is to achieve his goal of peace in the middle east... that is his only way.

But, this time, we might end up with enough oil to let our cars stay on the road for about 5 years. You can only play the oil game for so long, and if this war is any indication... we are about to hit a very, very dangerous point in our history when we realize our most precious resource is disappearing. What do humans do in that situation? Well... war. Love your peace as it is now, I think the world is about to get a lot more violent in the next 50 years.

When our resources start to run out (as they are doing now), I predict one of two things will happen.

1) The Earth, having already adopted 'Green Technology,' will be able to handle the trade-off from oil to renewable energy much easier. We won't have massive panics, and oil will become a thing of the past. We won't have the massive war that will come with the alternative.

...or...

2) War. It's almost a scenario like Red Storm Rising, except global. When the oil runs out, the situation on the planet will intensify to the point where oil will be the driving point of Humanity. Eventually, we'll be forced into war for this commodity, and, having consumed it all, we will either become extinct or adapt (very, very quickly).

We're in the same quagmire that we were in half-a-century ago, except this time, we're not protesting very often.There aren't as many protests this time because the perceived justification for our involvement is very different.

While it appears that we did not learn to temper our hubris, we did at least learn how to frame the issue in such a way as to minimize dissent.
“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
-Hermann Goering, second in command of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler's designated successor.

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?

Indeed. I just checked, and apparently...

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

/here comes WWIII

Great find, Arcesious.

Maps only tell you part of the story though. History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events) helps to flesh out some of what maps alone cannot.

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.

Great find, Arcesious.

Maps only tell you part of the story though. History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events) 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.

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.

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...

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?

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...

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 (http://antiwar.com/casualties/)

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 (http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm)

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.

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...

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 (http://antiwar.com/casualties/)

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.:dozey:

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.

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

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

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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). :xp: :D 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)?

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

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