Although there were a couple of interesting concessions - they did talk about how there were mistakes made along the way. But the whole gist of the conference appeared to be, "If you disagreed with us about going in, you should support us now that we're there."

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?

The supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho. Why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?

In May 2005, United States military forces in Iraq occupied 106 bases, according to a report in the Washington Post.1 Military commanders told that newspaper they eventually planed to consolidate these bases into four large airbases at Tallil, Al Asad, Balad and either Irbil or Qayyarah.

But other reports suggest the U.S. military has plans for even more bases: In April 2003 report in The New York Times reported that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region."2 According to the Chicago Tribune, U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," to serve as long-term encampments for thousands of American troops.3

- snip -

Building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq sends wrong signal (2005)

A year ago, President Bush boldly said: "Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America." Yet Congress is posed to finalize the president's $82 billion request for the Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another half-billion for building the world's largest embassy. Despite the president's assurances, the United States is preparing for a lengthy stay in Iraq.

quote:

---

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?

---

quote:

---

before Iran's nuclear capabilities

---

quote:

---

Congress is posed to finalize the president's $82 billion request for the Iraq war that includes a half-billion dollars for permanent military bases and another half-billion for building the world's largest embassy.

---

I hope they build a better helipad on the roof than they did on the Vietnam embassy.

quote:

---

Boom Boom: Has the Iraq puppets - oops, sorry - Iraq Parliament given their approval?

---

I came across the expression "client state" used instead of "puppet regime" recently. It was in reference to Afghanistan. Perhaps that is a better term to describe regimes, like the ones in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., that have a fig leaf of legitimacy to cover them. That way, we can save the term "puppet regime" for the really outrageous ones; for example, the Grenada regime, following the US invasion and overthrow of Maurice Bishop there in 1983, was the only country in the world, in the whole UN, to vote with the USA against a motion denouncing the militarization of outer space. Now that's a puppet regime - unless I've missed the Grenadian "space program" by paying attention to less important matters. Ahahahahahahahaha!

[ 26 May 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

"client state"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I read, probably a year or more ago, that the US is building a huge embassy in Iraq, as well as many military bases all over the country. Is the US now claiming 'ownership' of Iraq?

If the U.S. is ultimately leaving Iraq, why is the military building 'permanent' bases?

---

quote:

---

I can't say that the post WW I experiment of self-determination and decolonization has worked particularly well, can anyone? It seems like a return to the days of the Barbary Pirates preying on us, complete with high technology (whether owned or hijacked). If doing it the nice way didn't work, shouldn't we try something else?

---

WTF? You're kidding, right? The post WW1 "experiment" you refer to has been an exercise in economic exploitation and plunder by the western world, using local puppets as proxies instead of direct rule. Maybe it's the 17th 18th and 19th century "experiments in colonization and empire that didn't work particularly well. So you're saying that these unfortunate nonwestern countries should be garrisoned and run by the west for everyones good?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wolfpreserver:

I can't say that the post WW I experiment of self-determination and decolonization has worked particularly well, can anyone? If doing it the nice way didn't work, shouldn't we try something else?

---

quote:

---

Noise: Is that a term from an actual political body, or just the term a company like Lockheed Martin came up with to describe the obscene profit they make from the region?

---

A bit of both, eh? Here's Wiki:

quote:

---

A client state is a state subservient to another state. This can occur in many varying ways, most commonly by treaty, military occupation, and/or economic dependence. Client states have existed for millennia as stronger powers made subservient those around them as they grew. In ancient times states such as Persia and Greek Polis' would create client states by making the personal leaders of that state subservient. One of the most prolific users of client states was Republican Rome which, instead of conquering and then absorbing into an empire, instead chose to make client states out of those it defeated, a policy which was continued up until the 1st century BC when imperial power took over. The use of client states continued through the Middle Ages as the feudal system began to take hold, and in a way the entire society was based upon various divisions of a realm being clients to middle level nobility, who in turn were client to the powerful nobility, who were in turn client to the monarch, who, in the case of Catholic states, was often a client of the Pope.

In modern times, client states have developed based upon imperial possessions of the great European powers of 19th century. These client states were especially obvious during the Cold War as almost the entire world divided based upon being a client state of either the Soviet Union or the United States.

---