• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea

J

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
link

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."
Click to expand...

So, GWB has not intended to bring the troops home all along. He finally got around to telling us now.

Some of us had inferred this from the size and quality of the bases that we have built there, only to be scoffed at. Well, fearless leader has confirmed it.

Imagine how hard we will have to try to exert influence on the Iraqi government so they won't ask us to leave.

Bin Laden claimed that his biggest beef with us was basing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a reason for many to join them. Long term bases in Iraq should do wonders for their recruiting now.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
link

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."
Click to expand...

So, GWB has not intended to bring the troops home all along. He finally got around to telling us now.

Some of us had inferred this from the size and quality of the bases that we have built there, only to be scoffed at. Well, fearless leader has confirmed it.

Imagine how hard we will have to try to exert influence on the Iraqi government so they won't ask us to leave.

Bin Laden claimed that his biggest beef with us was basing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a reason for many to join them. Long term bases in Iraq should do wonders for their recruiting now.
Click to expand...

Cant really lay this on Bush. Even the failed "bring the troops home" bills the Dems put together had provsions to leave special forces troops in Iraq.

Also...remember Japan? Here it is 50+ years later we are still there.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusaBin Laden claimed that his biggest beef with us was basing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a reason for many to join them. Long term bases in Iraq should do wonders for their recruiting now.
Click to expand...

and when that changed Bin Laden and people like him invent their next problem with us. got to love Al-Qaida's latest, includes our association with 56 Muslim governments they don't approve of.

As for building big bases, they knew we were going to be there a few years, so temp solutions in a hard environment weren't the order of the day. Also, temp solutions are not easy to protect.

He gave Iraq an out, we will leave when they tell us to. We have done so in every country we are in. Hell there are more countries I would love for us to be out of but those countries don't want us to leave. (like Germany for one)
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
link

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."
Click to expand...

So, GWB has not intended to bring the troops home all along. He finally got around to telling us now.

Some of us had inferred this from the size and quality of the bases that we have built there, only to be scoffed at. Well, fearless leader has confirmed it.

Imagine how hard we will have to try to exert influence on the Iraqi government so they won't ask us to leave.

Bin Laden claimed that his biggest beef with us was basing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a reason for many to join them. Long term bases in Iraq should do wonders for their recruiting now.
Click to expand...

Cant really lay this on Bush. Even the failed "bring the troops home" bills the Dems put together had provsions to leave special forces troops in Iraq.

Also...remember Japan? Here it is 50+ years later we are still there.
Click to expand...

Yep..

South Korea as well..
hell.. I believe we maintain a presence in Kosovo also..



 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
link

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."
Click to expand...

So, GWB has not intended to bring the troops home all along. He finally got around to telling us now.

Some of us had inferred this from the size and quality of the bases that we have built there, only to be scoffed at. Well, fearless leader has confirmed it.

Imagine how hard we will have to try to exert influence on the Iraqi government so they won't ask us to leave.

Bin Laden claimed that his biggest beef with us was basing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a reason for many to join them. Long term bases in Iraq should do wonders for their recruiting now.
Click to expand...

Cant really lay this on Bush. Even the failed "bring the troops home" bills the Dems put together had provsions to leave special forces troops in Iraq.

Also...remember Japan? Here it is 50+ years later we are still there.
Click to expand...

65,000 troops in Germany I believe, 62 years after the fall of the third reich.
Our troops will be there as long as the country of Iraq accepts our tax dollars for renting the land.

 
Am I the only person that realizes that the Iraqi government has no control outside of the green-zone? Am I also the only person that reads the stats in which over 70% of Shias and 93% of Sunnis do not want us in that country and approve of our soldiers being target practice? Am I the only person that sees a smorgasboard of terrorists, militants, criminal gangs, and bordered nations, ALL HOSTILE TO OUR PRESENCE in IRAQ?

This is nothing like S. Korea, Germany and Japan, people. NOTHING. This is no different from Vietnam, where you have a weak and corrupt government who won't survive one day after we leave and desperately needs us to keep them afloat.


EDIT: I was watching CNN last night and apparently some of the soldiers in the Iraqi Army fight with us during the day and against us at night or on their days off. We cannot trust these people.
 
Yep the occupation is not permanent. US troops will only be present for about a century (see New American Century). :roll:

 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
link

He said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."
Click to expand...

So, GWB has not intended to bring the troops home all along. He finally got around to telling us now.

Some of us had inferred this from the size and quality of the bases that we have built there, only to be scoffed at. Well, fearless leader has confirmed it.

Imagine how hard we will have to try to exert influence on the Iraqi government so they won't ask us to leave.

Bin Laden claimed that his biggest beef with us was basing troops in Saudi Arabia. This was a reason for many to join them. Long term bases in Iraq should do wonders for their recruiting now.
Click to expand...

Cant really lay this on Bush. Even the failed "bring the troops home" bills the Dems put together had provsions to leave special forces troops in Iraq.

Also...remember Japan? Here it is 50+ years later we are still there.
Click to expand...

The special forces is probably to secure the area and have intelligence.

As for Japan... well, this is the middle-east. They hate western and civilized culture. Having a permanent US base there is probably the one thing that all of the middle-east would be united against. And would validate what Bin Laden has been saying for the last decade.
 
The Japanese found our presence to be quite welcome as a buffer against Chinese aggression in Korea. It may well have kept China to occasional saber-rattling rather than military action. It continues to keep Taiwan free and offers a stage in the region to demonstrate American air and sea power.

During the cold war, Germany was considered to be the entry point of a Soviet land based invasion of Europe. Our presence was also the force that stood up to the constant belligerence of the Soviets against W. Berlin. Bases in Germany today are huge overseas supply depots that shorten hardware deployment to many areas. Much armor and artillery training is done there as well. Still welcomed by the Germans, it is an essential element for providing the "teeth" behind NATO.

Welcomed by the S. Koreans as a deterrent against N. Korea and China. Has allowed massive local and foreign investment in industry there since they are unlikely to be overrun again.

U.S. long term presence in Iraq not desired by most Iraqis or their neighbors. Variously described as being from belligerent to imperialistic. Continued threats of retaliation if we remain.

How blind can you people be if you consider our long term presence in Iraq to be of the same stripe as those in Japan, Germany, and S. Korea?
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The Japanese found our presence to be quite welcome as a buffer against Chinese aggression in Korea. It may well have kept China to occasional saber-rattling rather than military action. It continues to keep Taiwan free and offers a stage in the region to demonstrate American air and sea power.

During the cold war, Germany was considered to be the entry point of a Soviet land based invasion of Europe. Our presence was also the force that stood up to the constant belligerence of the Soviets against W. Berlin. Bases in Germany today are huge overseas supply depots that shorten hardware deployment to many areas. Much armor and artillery training is done there as well. Still welcomed by the Germans, it is an essential element for providing the "teeth" behind NATO.

Welcomed by the S. Koreans as a deterrent against N. Korea and China. Has allowed massive local and foreign investment in industry there since they are unlikely to be overrun again.

U.S. long term presence in Iraq not desired by most Iraqis or their neighbors. Variously described as being from belligerent to imperialistic. Continued threats of retaliation if we remain.

How blind can you people be if you consider our long term presence in Iraq to be of the same stripe as those in Japan, Germany, and S. Korea?
Click to expand...
It's a function of being uninformed and ill-informed. Afflictions that continue to plague about 32% of the US population . . . and the turd at 1600PA. Most of these people know little about CURRENT geopolitics of Japan, Germany, and South Korea and nothing about the post-war era of those countries.

 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
The Japanese found our presence to be quite welcome as a buffer against Chinese aggression in Korea. It may well have kept China to occasional saber-rattling rather than military action. It continues to keep Taiwan free and offers a stage in the region to demonstrate American air and sea power.

During the cold war, Germany was considered to be the entry point of a Soviet land based invasion of Europe. Our presence was also the force that stood up to the constant belligerence of the Soviets against W. Berlin. Bases in Germany today are huge overseas supply depots that shorten hardware deployment to many areas. Much armor and artillery training is done there as well. Still welcomed by the Germans, it is an essential element for providing the "teeth" behind NATO.

Welcomed by the S. Koreans as a deterrent against N. Korea and China. Has allowed massive local and foreign investment in industry there since they are unlikely to be overrun again.

U.S. long term presence in Iraq not desired by most Iraqis or their neighbors. Variously described as being from belligerent to imperialistic. Continued threats of retaliation if we remain.

How blind can you people be if you consider our long term presence in Iraq to be of the same stripe as those in Japan, Germany, and S. Korea?
Click to expand...
It's a function of being uninformed and ill-informed. Afflictions that continue to plague about 32% of the US population . . . and the turd at 1600PA. Most of these people know little about CURRENT geopolitics of Japan, Germany, and South Korea and nothing about the post-war era of those countries.
Click to expand...

Remind us again of your real name so we can elect you in 08...I mean, you obviously arent calling the kettle black and have intimate knowledge that our prez doesnt...come on man SAVE US!
 
American forces remained in the Pacific and post-war Germany well after WW2 largely due to the spheres of influence concept that defined the onset of the Cold War.

American forces remain in Bosnia and Kosovo to this day, despite "mission accomplished" being declared long ago in both countries...and largely because American foreign policy saw a benefit to establishing an American presence in eastern Europe after the fall of communism, largely to prevent the ethnic clashes of the Balkans from spreading across Europe.

Given the rise of Al Quaida and Islamic fundamentalism, there was certainly a need for a prominant American presence in the Middle East...conquering Iraq to establish that presence was not the best course of action.

 
Originally posted by: Dari
Am I the only person that realizes that the Iraqi government has no control outside of the green-zone? Am I also the only person that reads the stats in which over 70% of Shias and 93% of Sunnis do not want us in that country and approve of our soldiers being target practice? Am I the only person that sees a smorgasboard of terrorists, militants, criminal gangs, and bordered nations, ALL HOSTILE TO OUR PRESENCE in IRAQ?

This is nothing like S. Korea, Germany and Japan, people. NOTHING. This is no different from Vietnam, where you have a weak and corrupt government who won't survive one day after we leave and desperately needs us to keep them afloat.
Click to expand...
You're not the only one, but the delusional historical revisionists in this thread and others seem incapable of seeing Iraq for what it truly is.
 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Given the rise of Al Quaida and Islamic fundamentalism, there was certainly a need for a prominant American presence in the Middle East...conquering Iraq to establish that presence was not the best course of action.
Click to expand...

No, the best course of action would have been to stay in Afghanistan and actually go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Even if they didn't catch them, the middle-east, hell, the whole world, would never allow terrorists to live in their nation... because if they did, they would be toppled just as quickly and easily as Afghanistan did. Going into the war, everybody thought it was going to be a huge mess... you had Russians saying that if they couldn't do it, the US was going to have a very bloody battle on their hands. The extremists thought their experience with the Soviets would drive the US out of Afghanistan as well, especially since they have less of a stomach for deaths than the Soviets did.

And when it all occurred like clockwork, it stunned the rest of the world. The Russians clearly underestimated the American might, and all the muslim world was shaking. Palestinians were scared sh1tless that Israel might adopt similar policies. Syria was even worried.

Now though, you have a perfect spawning ground for more terrorists... and the American might is not as mighty as once thought.
 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
American forces remained in the Pacific and post-war Germany well after WW2 largely due to the spheres of influence concept that defined the onset of the Cold War.

American forces remain in Bosnia and Kosovo to this day, despite "mission accomplished" being declared long ago in both countries...and largely because American foreign policy saw a benefit to establishing an American presence in eastern Europe after the fall of communism, largely to prevent the ethnic clashes of the Balkans from spreading across Europe.

Given the rise of Al Quaida and Islamic fundamentalism, there was certainly a need for a prominant American presence in the Middle East...conquering Iraq to establish that presence was not the best course of action.
Click to expand...
Now that's the understatement of the day . . .

 
Why is this even discussed? It just goes without saying that the US would set up a permanent presence in Iraq. People can argue about whether or not this is bad or whether or not the war was justified but the fact that there will be a base there is just to be assumed.

The only way there will be no base there is if everything goes to totally to pot in iraq and insurgents attack the base. This is a real possibility in my opinion.
 
Originally posted by: 1prophet
See how the GI's intermingle with the local population (including the females) without bodyarmor or worrying where the next IED, ambush, or sniper is located.

Does anyone think that a similar situation can exist in Iraq?
Click to expand...
Speaking of snipers, these poor guys couldn't do a thing as they were picked off from afar. Large occupying forces can't effectively battle a insurgency of this size, especially one that utilizes guerrilla warfare and blends into the population so easily.
 
As long as American forces are in Iraq, they will be targeted for death. We invaded and occupied an innocent country, killed 10's-of-thousands of Iraqi men women & children. They will hate us for generations... as well they should.
 
I think what the pro-occupiers are banking on is an American acceptance of drip-drip of American casualties. Just like with gas prices, they want the increase to be slow and steady, not abrupt and harsh. They can "live with that".
 
Originally posted by: Narmer
I think what the pro-occupiers are banking on is an American acceptance of drip-drip of American casualties. Just like with gas prices, they want the increase to be slow and steady, not abrupt and harsh. They can "live with that".
Click to expand...

It cannot last. $8B in Korea, $6B in Japan, $6B in Germany are considered 'acceptable' yearly expenditures . . . even though most Americans are unaware of just how much we spend in these countries. $8B a MONTH in Iraq and a daily body count cannot be sustained. Just wait until Republicans start claiming that we cannot afford to spend $8B a year to provide health insurance to children in working families.

It is a curious symmetry . . . Bush has caused TRILLIONS in short to long-term liabilities to the American taxpayer (Iraq/Medicare) and presided over more than a TRILLION in tax cuts. It must be nice to spend money for several generations.:roll:
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
As long as American forces are in Iraq, they will be targeted for death. We invaded and occupied an innocent country, killed 10's-of-thousands of Iraqi men women & children. They will hate us for generations... as well they should.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that, we killed by some accounts over 2 million vietnamese yet they have welcomed us back.

How come we don't see the same type of hatred there?
 
Hey, American troops have provided a whole lot of stability so far, right? Right?

Well, maybe not- maybe we'll see some after the whole country outside the Green Zone has been reduced to rubble. Right?

But we'll be right there, to protect the iraqis from- from whom? Al Qaeda? They were doing a better job of that, themselves... Teh Ebil Iranians? Half the population would greet them with open arms, if it meant we were leaving... Who else? It's not like Kim Jong Il has a million men poised at the border...
 
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
As long as American forces are in Iraq, they will be targeted for death. We invaded and occupied an innocent country, killed 10's-of-thousands of Iraqi men women & children. They will hate us for generations... as well they should.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that, we killed by some accounts over 2 million vietnamese yet they have welcomed us back.

How come we don't see the same type of hatred there?
Click to expand...

I think that's the same theme as the OP. The history of Vietnam and the culture shaped both their resistance to the French/Americans as well as their perspective on relations with those that have been vanquished.

In Iraq, we will never win but we aren't fighting just Iraqis. People have come from all over the region to get a shot at an American soldier. The Iraqis will never forget that we disposed of Saddam but our woeful ignorance of their society and arrogance in behavior has caused us far more trouble than Sadr.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top