Opinion Talk

By Sam Honeycutt

June 3, 2005 07:36 AM | Link to this

Unless there is an stated plan to eventually turn over these bases to the Iraqi government this would be more than an unwise move. This would signal the Iraqi people and the Muslim world as a whole that we intend to be an occupying force in Iraq. This would be like how we would have felt if during the Revolutionary War France would have built permanent forts on US land.

By rob

June 3, 2005 08:16 AM | Link to this

I would prefer one on the texas -mexico border. Why worry about iraqi borders and security when have our own issues? Maybe this “look at the sock puppet and not over here” crap will stop soon. Maybe a new motto for the US can be “security begins at home” in stead of “the handouts start here”.

By Van

June 3, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

I have lived in tent cities, there is nothing better than having a solid floor to walk on, this will give our troops a moral boost. Porta-potties can do the job, but having real bathrooms can do a lot for a young soldier or marine. In addition, this will help protect our troops, tents do very little stopping shrapnel.

In the future, when we leave, we will leave behind a modern facility for the Iraqi Armed forces to occupy. They call this “good will”.

By Lyrazel

June 3, 2005 09:12 AM | Link to this

Perhaps it is time for this administration to come clean on the real reasons we are still in Iraq. Building bases assures America wants to keep a secure hold on oil and keep its presence in the Middle East. Why no disclosure about the military bases we are building in neighboring countries like Tagikistan, Uzbekistan? Small wonder recruiters are having such a rough time promoting reasons to become warriors.

Oh, should we not mention the fact our military uses No Child Left Behind to gain access to teenagers phone numbers, classrooms for recruiting or else schools face denial of government education funds?

By E. Lewis

June 3, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Only if you want to inflame the tensions in the Middle East even more and give terrorists and anti-Western fighters an easy target.

By Scooter

June 3, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

Militery bases absolutely not! However, we should leave behind many spies, informants and any thing else our government can do to know the “word on the street”.

By Roberto

June 3, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

Permanant bases in Iraq? What a great idea. I mean, in the sunshine and happiness world of Dubya/Rummy/Condy and the like, things are going so well in Iraq we might as well set up shop for the long hall. If we are going to bomb the world into submission, oops, I mean promote freedom, we have to set up somewhere where people WANT us to stay forever and if one thing I’ve noticed about our glorious liberation of Iraq is that they LOVE us and never want us to leave. This is a win-win situation, I see nothing but good things happening.

By Dan

June 3, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Of course,it is necessary. As with most of our history, we liberate, rebuild and defend. People seem to forget it took 10-15 years for things to settle down after wwII and we still have bases in countries all of western europe and asia. As a matter of fact those countries complain when we downsize because they are such a boon to the local economies, just as they are here.

By kimberly

June 3, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

Sure! Having several, fully-entrenched military bases in a foreign country is essential to the Imperialistic ideals upon which this country was founded. You can’t exploit the resources and enslave the citizens of another nation without putting your might on-site, and flexing it around. Also, you have to be ready to CRUSH any individuals or groups who might dare to take issue with said presence and exploitation. HOO-ah! Oh, wait… I’m thinking of the British empire, from which we fought to separate. Never mind.

By STEPHEN

June 3, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

If there was any indication at all that the existence of 14 hardened US military bases in Iraq might actually contribute to improving the situation for Iraq itself, then I might be inclined to say it’s a good idea.

Unfortunately, no such indication is apparent. In fact, the very fact that such bases are under construction leads me to pose several questions.

Are these bases designed to facilitate a long-term presence of a significantly large US military force in Iraq?

And if so,for what specific reasons?

Are these bases being constructed so our soldiers can “withdraw” from our active engagement in the streets of Iraq as the emerging civil war escalates?

And if this is the case,(if we’re basically abandoning our posture that we’re there to actively help establish security and stability for the Iraqis), why do we not then simply bring all our personnel home?

In the end, there’s something very “fishy” about these bases, just as nearly all the other activities and plans in Iraq are “fishy”

By Van

June 3, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

News Flash - The WMD’s that IRAQ did not have are missing. How can that be if they did not exist to begin with?

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

By Bob

June 3, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Sure, why not.

And let’s nationalize the Iraqi oil fields while we’re at it. And then move these Iraqi’s out. They’re just a damned nuisance anyway. Maybe bring in some Palestinians to work the oil fields. Might work, right?

By kimberly

June 3, 2005 06:49 PM | Link to this

Van, good catch. So… are you saying that we are safer-er now? Does this mean that nearly 1700 American soldiers have died but nobody knows where the dangerous STUFF is? And if Saddam had control of all this dangerous stuff, why was he “captured” hiding in a hole with an unloaded pistol? Hmmm… Hey Van, do they know where the OIL is? I’ll bet they do. It’s in that pipeline their buddies from Kuwait built as thanks for 1991. That is WELL-guarded, to be sure.

By notsofast

June 4, 2005 02:06 AM | Link to this

The American Empire knows no bounds.We must have control of the Iraqi oil.That’s what the war is all about.Our hand must be on the spigot.The military bases are necessary in order to have complete and absolute authority over the Iraqis and their one worthwhile resource.The American military machine has over 700 military installations outside of the U.S. and about 6000 military locations within our borders.We are an unprecendented war machine without rival.Violence works and the citizens of Iraq are learning all about our unique form of democracy.It’s pretty special.We set up shop in your country and then take your resources for pennies on the dollar at the point of a gun.And there’s nothing one can do to stop it.We don’t care about the U.N.or NATO or any other worldwide organization.We are a rogue state and what we say goes.Just listen to Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld.Do what we say or we will squeeze you financially and if that doesn’t work then we’ll turn our guns on you and who’s going to stop us?The enormous dominance of our military is our trump card.And Bush is playing our strong hand with a brashness that is scaring the rest of the world like never before.The vast majority of Americans have no idea what is really going on.Look a little closer and the truth is there under the giant stack of lies.

By Van

June 4, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, I have a question for you. Has this country done anything that you like? Has any administration performed to your demanding criteria?

Look at the local gas pumps, as you can see we are getting plenty of cheap oil. We pay, I think, about $1.75 more per gallon as the Iraqis do.

AND, my point in the news article was a slap in the face to all the progressives that feel we went into Iraq because of WMD, and there were not any. I guess the UN is wrong on this also, according to you Kimberly.

By Mara

June 6, 2005 12:23 PM | Link to this

Van you should have finished the article before commenting. Then you would have known that these sites where the “WMDs” went missing were subject to UN weapons inspections before the war-of-choice because the chemicals were dual-use. They could as easily be used to manufacture pharmaceuticals or vaccines as for more malign purposes. And inspections along with monitoring kept track of every drop of chemical…that is,until Bushs saber rattling forced the inspectors to leave Iraq for their own safety. Trying to spin it as though these chemicals were the “growing threat” or the possible “mushroom cloud” that Bush used to push his war-of-choice isn’t very honest. If he was really worried about WMD, maybe the Chimp should’ve told the Marines to guard Al QaaQaa and other weapons dumps instead of the Oil Ministry and the pipelines.
As to the question of bases in Iraq…no, we shouldn’t be building bases where we don’t intend a long-term occupation. But like everything else about Bushs War, it’s bas-akwards. We shut schools in America and open ‘em in Baghdad. We build power stations in Iraq while our own power grid sags from neglect. Our roads and bridges are falling apart, education reform, border and port security, the TSA, FDA and social services are dangerously underfunded because billions of dollars per year are going to Iraq instead of caring for our own country. No, we shouldn’t build bases in Iraq. We shouldn’t even be there at all.

By Van

June 7, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Mara, What is the dual use of long range missle parts? You also must remember, this was his dodge of obtaining the equipment in the first place. Just like Clinton giving China the technology to put satellites into stable orbits, is the same technology that allows accruate aiming of warheads. Also, the reason I put the article there was to see if anyone from the left actually read beyond the New York times like writing in the AJC. Mara, you win.

By Van

June 7, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

notsofast, And this is why we are still in Germany, we wanted to control their massive coal fields to fire our electric generating plants. Our bases in England is so we can control their tin mines and lead mines. I can’t think of why we are in Italy, but I am sure you can fill in the blanks. I guess we are still in Japan for the sushi also, right?

notsofast, poor arguement, bad logic and plain wrong.

By Dan

June 7, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Actually Mara the inspectors job was not to find weapons but to validate and document the destruction of the weapons, this is clearly explained in the security council resolutions. Clearly they were unsuccessful, if they did their job the world would have known the weapons were moved, as it was every nation with an intelligence agency was still under the impression there were viable weapons there (more than the chemical ones that were found. Logically the invasion proved beyond a doubt the inspections were ineffective. Your mishandling of the facts continues in your rant, power plants are not built due to eco maniacs and there positon creating untenable situations for our industry and education is significantly over funded. Bush has doubled the funding for education and it is not even being fully used.

By kimberly

June 7, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Yes, Van. There is plenty that I love about America. Freedom of speech, for one. We used to have a free press, but as you know, that has officially flatlined. The days are numbered on my legal right to speak in dissent, I’m afraid. I shall mourn that bitterly. I love that most Americans believe in individualism and our inalienable right to pursue happiness based on our own definition of it, as long as we’re not screwing someone else. (Republicans will differ here, inserting their right to obtain happiness BY screwing someone else, and by defining what “righteous” people should fulfilling.)

Can an administration meet my demanding standards? I don’t know. But early in 1993, the administration began a massive innoculation program for poor kids. This saved me some money by spending a little up front to prevent diseases in families that would rely on county hospitals to treat them in the emergency room. But mostly, it was the right thing to do, so I appreciated that. I appreciated when the Supreme Court decided that what to do with my body was MY decision! I appreciate the principles and concepts behind public education, although that has gone in the toilet in the last generation or so. I’d feel better if ALL the schools received adequate funding and attention, not just the ones in the neighborhood I struggle to afford for my child’s sake. But that’s not going to happen as long as this administration drives us further into RECORD debt and deficit spending all our money in Iraq to guard the oil.

By Van

June 7, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, from your statement, “But early in 1993, the administration began a massive innoculation program for poor kids. This saved me some money…”, I must assume that you are poor. We had the same program in the 1950’s, a time of a republican president. The next point I find amusing is - “I appreciated when the Supreme Court decided that what to do with my body was MY decision!”. Sorry, but you have bought into a losing argument, I must say the Roe v. Wade desicion placed the federal government between your doctor and you. Plus the fact that is isn’t true. Are you allowed to abuse yourself? Have you heard of the insane teen practice of cutting yourself? Are you allowed to endanger yourself? The answer to both of these is “Of course not”, but it is your body right? Oh, and by the way, it only applies to women and not to men, unequal application of the law. Discrimination. Whatever happened to equal rights?

On the topic of the free press, just look at the New York Times - Far left. The AJC, leftist. The resent St. Louis paper that was sold make being liberal part of the sales contract. So unless these are not left enough for you…?

Free speech is enjoyed by all, unless you challenge the left. Then you are shut down. Like the ex-gay group that wanted to pass out information at the national PTA conference - they were turned down, because they callenged the left Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays just wanted the same exposure as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians And Gays, just an equal chance, but that was not to be. Some free speech.

By notsofast

June 7, 2005 05:39 PM | Link to this

Van, Willful ignorance and a complete lack of desire to discover the truth doesn’t change the facts.Every fact can be discovered once one leaves behind all of their necessary illusions.I guess you’re either unable or unwilling to subject yourself to the truth.Probably unable.

By cindy

June 8, 2005 05:09 AM | Link to this

Dear notsofast, Your comments to van are as leftest as the left is against the Iraqi war. You cannot back up what you say with facts, can only hurl insults.
Where are the facts to back up your alligations? As a matter of fact you are so unsure of yourself you are un- willing or unable to put a name to your rantings.

By Scooter

June 8, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

While Van supports many things that I do not, Notsofast I feel that you have croseed the line. Beacause, you Kimberly and others have allowed your selves to get lost in the nuance. There are simple black and white issues, right and wrong, however you all have allowed yourselves to get lost in the details. Your emotions of hatred have been stirred up by hte dems and the media. Once you allow yourself to go into emotions, you loose sight of the right and wrong.

Liberals entire argument on Iraq revolves around the fact that they would prefer the U.N. be the enforcement arm for America’s foreign interest (“blood for oil” is the argument of a mental midget, sorry). The simple right and wrong is this; Saddam signed a cease-fire agreement and he should either live up to it or not… it’s that simple. That Oil for Food Program was working fanatstically, right.