US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer
We'll be there permanently!!!

Goddamn war mongering, money spending administration. OBL is doing exactly what he said....bankrupting the US (from inside out).

Yes, now place yourself 60 years ago and replace Iraq with Japan and Germany.

Iraq bombed US soil like Japan did? Man, the lengh some people will go to justify this war in Iraq.

Did Germany????

But thank you for missing the point.

Germany was marching across Europe, bombing England, and sinking our ships in the Atlantic. They were a true threat to world peace.

Where was the threat from Iraq?

Perhaps if someone had the balls to adopt a policy of pre-emption against the old world Germany, we would still be debating the morality of pre-emption, and questioning what possible threat they might have posed, rather than remembering the 40 million dead.

So in a way, I guess your rhetoric does serve a purpose....

Wrong, if US adopt a policy of pre-emptive strike against Germany/Japn, we would still lost lots of life fighting the war, and the ally we had during WW2 wouldn't be joining us because there was not a strong enough justification.

In other word, US would have become Germany/Japan (the aggressor) and lost the war because we would have been fighting a war that was not just, unnnecessary (remember, a pre-emptive strike means all that evil German and Japan did had not happen yet) and would not get the support from the rest of the world.

Sort like what's happenning now in Iraq, only Iraq didn't had the military and the international political pull like German and Japan had.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Going from more than 100 bases to 4 is bad?

I havent read the rest of the thread, but im willing to bet no one addresses this, as it is the answer the all the "whys" and makes perfect sense.

And as for never pulling out, People said the same thing back in 91 when we establishied a huge presence in Saudi Arabia. notice we now have zero military in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Hecubus2000]

:thumbsup: Sounds good to me.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: datalink7
Going from more than 100 bases to 4 is bad?

I havent read the rest of the thread, but im willing to bet no one addresses this, as it is the answer the all the "whys" and makes perfect sense.

And as for never pulling out, People said the same thing back in 91 when we establishied a huge presence in Saudi Arabia. notice we now have zero military in Saudi Arabia.

When was there ever going to be 100 bases?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: datalink7
Going from more than 100 bases to 4 is bad?

I havent read the rest of the thread, but im willing to bet no one addresses this, as it is the answer the all the "whys" and makes perfect sense.

And as for never pulling out, People said the same thing back in 91 when we establishied a huge presence in Saudi Arabia. notice we now have zero military in Saudi Arabia.

When was there ever going to be 100 bases?

How many do you think there are now?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: datalink7
Going from more than 100 bases to 4 is bad?

I havent read the rest of the thread, but im willing to bet no one addresses this, as it is the answer the all the "whys" and makes perfect sense.

And as for never pulling out, People said the same thing back in 91 when we establishied a huge presence in Saudi Arabia. notice we now have zero military in Saudi Arabia.

I think the military pesence in Saudi Arabia was more of a staging area for the gulf war and to protect/soothe their fears of retaliation by Saddam.

 

[azazyel]

what makes me sad is that we are closing bases here and putting thousands of Americans out of work and will harm some local economies. Yet we are building bases that we are just going to hand over?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer
We'll be there permanently!!!

Goddamn war mongering, money spending administration. OBL is doing exactly what he said....bankrupting the US (from inside out).

Yes, now place yourself 60 years ago and replace Iraq with Japan and Germany.

Iraq bombed US soil like Japan did? Man, the lengh some people will go to justify this war in Iraq.

Did Germany????

But thank you for missing the point.

Germany was marching across Europe, bombing England, and sinking our ships in the Atlantic. They were a true threat to world peace.

Where was the threat from Iraq?

Perhaps if someone had the balls to adopt a policy of pre-emption against the old world Germany, we would still be debating the morality of pre-emption, and questioning what possible threat they might have posed, rather than remembering the 40 million dead.

So in a way, I guess your rhetoric does serve a purpose....

Someone did adopt a policy of pre-emption -- Adolf Hitler.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer
We'll be there permanently!!!

Goddamn war mongering, money spending administration. OBL is doing exactly what he said....bankrupting the US (from inside out).

Yes, now place yourself 60 years ago and replace Iraq with Japan and Germany.

Iraq bombed US soil like Japan did? Man, the lengh some people will go to justify this war in Iraq.

Did Germany????

But thank you for missing the point.

Germany was marching across Europe, bombing England, and sinking our ships in the Atlantic. They were a true threat to world peace.

Where was the threat from Iraq?

Perhaps if someone had the balls to adopt a policy of pre-emption against the old world Germany, we would still be debating the morality of pre-emption, and questioning what possible threat they might have posed, rather than remembering the 40 million dead.

So in a way, I guess your rhetoric does serve a purpose....

Someone did adopt a policy of pre-emption -- Adolf Hitler.

And England/France/Russia adopted a policy of appeasment.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: datalink7
Going from more than 100 bases to 4 is bad?

I havent read the rest of the thread, but im willing to bet no one addresses this, as it is the answer the all the "whys" and makes perfect sense.

And as for never pulling out, People said the same thing back in 91 when we establishied a huge presence in Saudi Arabia. notice we now have zero military in Saudi Arabia.

When was there ever going to be 100 bases?

How many do you think there are now?

I'd say a couple of major ones including the one at the Baghdad airport.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Engineer
We'll be there permanently!!!

Goddamn war mongering, money spending administration. OBL is doing exactly what he said....bankrupting the US (from inside out).

Yes, now place yourself 60 years ago and replace Iraq with Japan and Germany.

Iraq bombed US soil like Japan did? Man, the lengh some people will go to justify this war in Iraq.

Did Germany????

But thank you for missing the point.

Germany was marching across Europe, bombing England, and sinking our ships in the Atlantic. They were a true threat to world peace.

Where was the threat from Iraq?

Perhaps if someone had the balls to adopt a policy of pre-emption against the old world Germany, we would still be debating the morality of pre-emption, and questioning what possible threat they might have posed, rather than remembering the 40 million dead.

So in a way, I guess your rhetoric does serve a purpose....

Someone did adopt a policy of pre-emption -- Adolf Hitler.

And England/France/Russia adopted a policy of appeasment.

To avoid a war that they knew would turn into a World War. I don't think the logic of a pre-emptive strike to avoid a world war can applied to Saddam and compared to the situation leading up to WWII, at least not after the he got his ass royally kicked in the gulf war.

 

[Zebo]

EK- Talk about fighting on the wrong side WW2 is a good example or at very least war we should'nt have entered.

Russia! Hilter wanted to take them out we stopped them!! Russia the greatest evil on earth who killed and raped at least 40 million. The Red Army that pillaged, raped, and murdered its way westward across Europe for 60 yrs. The Red commies is the whole reason we lost 50,000 men in veitnam and 35,000 in korea. Yeah, even then lots of great men thought we were fighting on the wrong side. Henry Ford for one. Where Hitler killed his millions, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Castro murdered their tens of millions and we lost 500,000 in WW2 so they could do that.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: datalink7
Going from more than 100 bases to 4 is bad?

I havent read the rest of the thread, but im willing to bet no one addresses this, as it is the answer the all the "whys" and makes perfect sense.

And as for never pulling out, People said the same thing back in 91 when we establishied a huge presence in Saudi Arabia. notice we now have zero military in Saudi Arabia.

When was there ever going to be 100 bases?

How many do you think there are now?

I'd say a couple of major ones including the one at the Baghdad airport.

heh, way off. I'd go into more detail about # and locations of bases, but you can guess where that would leave me.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: datalink7
Going from more than 100 bases to 4 is bad?

I havent read the rest of the thread, but im willing to bet no one addresses this, as it is the answer the all the "whys" and makes perfect sense.

And as for never pulling out, People said the same thing back in 91 when we establishied a huge presence in Saudi Arabia. notice we now have zero military in Saudi Arabia.

When was there ever going to be 100 bases?

How many do you think there are now?

I'd say a couple of major ones including the one at the Baghdad airport.

heh, way off. I'd go into more detail about # and locations of bases, but you can guess where that would leave me.

Define bases?? Are they more then just tent cities?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
...Define bases?? Are they more then just tent cities?

A base would be any permanent residence of troops. by "permanent" I mean they stay in the same spot for an indefinite amount of time. If any spot is used more than once as a launching/staging area for missions/convoys, it can be considered a base. Bases usually have fortified defenses, lookouts, entry checkpoints, etc.

Not many tent cities left, most bases have at least trailers, many have sturdy barracks, and nowadays a lot of them are even air conditioned, with laundromats, dining halls, commisary/PX and internet access. Of course some of the smaller ones are pretty rugged, but thier presence is rewuired in certain areas to be able to respond quickly.

 

[tommywishbone]

Did someone compare Iraq to Germany & Japan (circa WWII)? I do believe somebody been listening to those Scott McClellan "press conferences" and actually believing them.
Ya, that Iraqi air force has been doing a lot of damage these days. And those Iraqi submarines are sneaky. And that Iraqi invasion of China is brutal.

Iraq did nothing. Nothing! We kill them by the 1000's, as we pulverize & incinerate their country. George W Bush is a madman. Thank you.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: glenn1
It depends on what size military presence we're going to maintain there. I'd say most likely scenario is that one will end up being similar in size to Incirlik AFB in Turkey, which is about 1400 troops, and the others will be "satellite" sites like Diego Garcia which are more waypoints and refueling depots than true bases. I doubt that the long-term presence will be much beyond 5k troops total as the CENTCOM HQ is located in Qatar and it's easier and politically simpler to maintain offshore basing with MEU's and such.

It will, in all likelihood, depend upon what Iran does in the near future. A sizeable strategic footprint, perhaps even with nuclear capability, is not out of the realm of possibility.

I agree that it depends on what reason we might have to need more troops. But I guess I don't see Iran doing anything too bad in the near future. Although these days simply existing as an anti-American government in the Middle East with interests in WMD could be enough. If that is all that's necessary to justify a larger presence, we'll have some major forces there for a while.

We'll see what the stardards are...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: datalink7
Going from more than 100 bases to 4 is bad?

I havent read the rest of the thread, but im willing to bet no one addresses this, as it is the answer the all the "whys" and makes perfect sense.

And as for never pulling out, People said the same thing back in 91 when we establishied a huge presence in Saudi Arabia. notice we now have zero military in Saudi Arabia.

When was there ever going to be 100 bases?

How many do you think there are now?

I'd say a couple of major ones including the one at the Baghdad airport.

heh, way off. I'd go into more detail about # and locations of bases, but you can guess where that would leave me.

And how many of those were meant to be permanent? Hmmm?

And how do they compare to these giant new perma-bases?

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur
....And how many of those were meant to be permanent? Hmmm?

And how do they compare to these giant new perma-bases?

who the F*** cares?

Plans can change daily, depending on the situation, what difference does it make what each base was "meant to be".

The point is its a hell of a lot easier to defend 4 large bases than 100 tiny ones. If you support the troops, you would support realignment to make them safer.

The number you should really be worrying about is total # of US troops in Iraq. The size, location, number, and perceived permanency of installations is irrelevant.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I can tell you what became of the FOUR major bases that the US built in Viet Nam.

1) Da Nang - Port in the Northern end of South Viet Nam.
Marine base for the timespan of the war.
Abandoned to the Viet Cong when the US withdrew.

2) An Khe (Camp Radcliff) in the Central Highlands.
1St Cav Airmoble - 'World's Biggest Helicopter Base'
Abandoned to the Viet Cong when the US withdrew.

3) Cam Rahn Bay - Best deepwater port in all of Asia
Major logistics and supply center to all US Military,
Air Force Base, Naval Fleet Center.
Abandoned to the Viet Cong when the US withdrew.

4) Tan Son Nuht Air Base, Siagon
(Terrible lack of info about Tan Son Nhut AB)
Capital of Viet Nam's Airport, Military deployment center for incoming troops
Main defensive base for the southern part of Vietnam.
Only one guess for this one.


(There were many other bases - these are the 'Big 4')

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
....And how many of those were meant to be permanent? Hmmm?

And how do they compare to these giant new perma-bases?

who the F*** cares?

Plans can change daily, depending on the situation, what difference does it make what each base was "meant to be".

The point is its a hell of a lot easier to defend 4 large bases than 100 tiny ones. If you support the troops, you would support realignment to make them safer.

The number you should really be worrying about is total # of US troops in Iraq. The size, location, number, and perceived permanency of installations is irrelevant.

Nah, if you really support the troops...you would be pushing like hell to get them OUT OF IRAQ....a country that they should have not been in and, for many, died needlessly in!! :|

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
....And how many of those were meant to be permanent? Hmmm?

And how do they compare to these giant new perma-bases?

who the F*** cares?

Plans can change daily, depending on the situation, what difference does it make what each base was "meant to be".

The point is its a hell of a lot easier to defend 4 large bases than 100 tiny ones. If you support the troops, you would support realignment to make them safer.

The number you should really be worrying about is total # of US troops in Iraq. The size, location, number, and perceived permanency of installations is irrelevant.

You're missing the point. Just how many troops are we going to have in Iraq for a VERY long time that will make them the constant target of attacks?

WAKE UP!

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
....And how many of those were meant to be permanent? Hmmm?

And how do they compare to these giant new perma-bases?

who the F*** cares?

Plans can change daily, depending on the situation, what difference does it make what each base was "meant to be".

The point is its a hell of a lot easier to defend 4 large bases than 100 tiny ones. If you support the troops, you would support realignment to make them safer.

The number you should really be worrying about is total # of US troops in Iraq. The size, location, number, and perceived permanency of installations is irrelevant.

You're missing the point. Just how many troops are we going to have in Iraq for a VERY long time that will make them the constant target of attacks?

WAKE UP!

Isn't that what I just said? That its the number of troops thats important, not the location/size/number of bases? And your asking me to wake up? Your rabiness makes you dumber every day.
Next time just read and think before applying another knee jerk response, your becoming useless to debate with.

 

[CaptnKirk]

From my past experience, the home base is where you return to at night and get moartared and rocketed,
after being out on the field for hideously long time spams of getting shot at or trying to find and engage the enemy.

They (locals/insurgents) live there, know the alleys and escape routes and will remain there long after we're gone away.

The 'Big' bases I was at were hit almost nightly - you resigned yourself to expect 5 attacks each and every week.
They always knew where you were, we only suspected their constantly shifting whereabouts.

So - what's changed ? Nothing that I can observe. Just anther stationary 'soft' target.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
From my past experience, the home base is where you return to at night and get moartared and rocketed,
after being out on the field for hideously long time spams of getting shot at or trying to find and engage the enemy.

They (locals/insurgents) live there, know the alleys and escape routes and will remain there long after we're gone away.

The 'Big' bases I was at were hit almost nightly - you resigned yourself to expect 5 attacks each and every week.
They always knew where you were, we only suspected their constantly shifting whereabouts.

So - what's changed ? Nothing that I can observe. Just anther stationary 'soft' target.

Well they don't have jungle to hide behind or we'd be looking at 15,000 dead instead of 1500 IMO.

I think they will build these bases in BFE, in the middle of wide open sand areas where picking off insurgents will be like shooting ducks in a barrel?