U.S. is building permanent bases in Iraq

[russ_watters]

Meanwhile back at the topic:


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/224055_iraqbases.html

And yet the new permanent bases are being built and the new Iraq democracy? has no say in the matter, except that they have told us that it would be best if we leave asap.

Did you read your own link(the one you linked in the OP), edward? You just directly contradicted it. Rumsfeld explicitly stated that the Iraqi government does have a say in the matter. What are you trying to pull? I'd say you were lying if it weren't so obvious you were contradicting yourself - do you just hope no one notices?

 

[russ_watters]

Hardly idle speculation given the fact they are building permanent bases there and Bush's (and the US's) track record. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

You alledged theft. Your article does not. Are you now admitting you were wrong to allege theft?

 

[russ_watters]

Lets keep score on this thread:

The OP contains 3 points:

1. "the U.S. military is planning on a very long stay in Iraq"
2. "This war is about oil, it has always been about oil, and there is no way that our troops will be leaving until we get the oil."
3. "It seems the administration had this planned all along. They knew we were going to have permanent troops in Iraq. Talk about conniving liars." [paraphrase: Bush lied about the length of the deployment]

-Point #1 is obvious and uselessly vague at the same time.
-Point #2 is a thinly veiled accusation of theft that edward has chosen to drop instead of supporting.
-Point #3, edward has admitted was wrong.

Posturing and rhetoric. That's all this thread is.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So the point is they are lying, and your counter argument is, hey everybody knew they were lying so what is the problem? sad

I was saying that I am not making a "counter argument". All of the points in the OP have already been discussed in other threads. Every one already knew that 'permanent' bases were going to be built in Iraq. I just don't understand such enthusiasm over a topic that's pretty much moot.

 

[edward]

Posturing and rhetoric. That's all this thread is.

That seems to be your standard depiction for everything involving forthrhrightness and truth about this administration Russ.

 

[scott1]

You can't do somenthing like a "massive counter attack against the insurgents" in a guerrilla warfare. Insurgents have no base, no front line, no defence perimeter. All you can do is search house by house and find weapons..

Trure.But I think we could plan some kind of "counter attack" that can be used against the insurgents.
We have to win the war before we can think about withdrawing U.S. troops.

 

[edward]

Did you read your own link(the one you linked in the OP), edward? You just directly contradicted it. Rumsfeld explicitly stated that the Iraqi government does have a say in the matter. What are you trying to pull?

What are your trying to pull Russ? Kill the messenger? Trash the poster so you don't have to deal with the truth? Gawd, Rumsfed said it so it must be true?

I'd say you were lying if it weren't so obvious you were contradicting yourself - do you just hope no one notices?

If you see a contradiction in any of my posts simply let me know in your posts, I am mature enought to accept it, Sans any accusations.

And speaking of accusations, cut it out with the lying accusations, this makes twice now and it is not appropriate for a mentor. It is also totally rude and immature for a grown man. I realize that you clevely phrased the accusation so you wouldn't have to defend it. However it was an still an insult.

Everything I posted was backed by a link.
If you read something differently than I do, that is your problem. Many links that are posted here are intrerpreted differently by different posters.

And I posted a number of links other than in the OP.

 

[Burnsys]

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a 21 April 2003 press conference said that any suggestion that the United States is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is "inaccurate and unfortunate." Rumsfeld said "I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting. ... The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence, to my knowledge.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm

 

[edward]

Here’s Larry Diamond, a former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority and author of "Squandered Victory," a scathing book about the occupation, writing earlier this month on the TPM Café blog with some suggested questions for President Bush:

Q. "Mr. President, do we seek long-term military bases in Iraq?"

Q. "If so, do you believe this strategic goal is worth the loss of more American lives in Iraq?"

Q. "If not, why don’t you declare that we will not do so, so as to remove one of the most powerful political mobilizing grounds for the insurgency?"

Diamond has a question for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as well:

Q. "Mr. Secretary, are we building permanent military bases in Iraq? What are our intentions there?"

Diamond explains that "we know from a variety of sources, private as well as public, that intense opposition to US plans to establish long-term military bases in Iraq is one of the most passionate motivations behind the insurgency.There are many different strands to the violent resistance that plagues Iraq: Islamist and secular, Sunni and Shiite, Baathist and non-Baathist, Iraqi and foreign. The one thing that unites these disparate elements is Iraqi (or broader pan-Arab) nationalism—resistance to what they see as a long-term project for imperial domination by the United States. Neutralizing this anti-imperial passion—by clearly stating that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely—is essential to winding down the insurgency."

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=132

Now admittedly these "enduring bases" are not something new to some people. But for the most part they have not been in the mainstream media until recently. Can anyone here honestly tell me that in 2003 their entire extended family knew that we were building permanent bases in Iraq.

I was aware that we were building facilities that would see us through 2006. I was not aware until recently that a number of permanent bases were planned from the beginning and that those facilities had a completion date of 2008.

Again I ask, give me a link that substantiates that the General American public was made aware of the building of permanent bases plan in Iraq as of 2003? or 04. Or is it still going to be: We already new the administration was lying so its not a problem.

 

[Art]

You alledged theft. Your article does not. Are you now admitting you were wrong to allege theft?

Russ the article is entitled "The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth". I think you will find in colloquial speech rip-off and theft are synonymous.

Now rather than play silly games based on semantics why not make germane comment that adds to the discussion. Whether it be 'I disagree with the premise of the article because...' or 'Wow I never realized...'

At the moment your contributions to this thread seems to be merely an attempt to be disruptive in an effort to obfuscate and to derail serious discussion which I thought was not allowed on this forum.

 

[russ_watters]

What are your trying to pull Russ? Kill the messenger? Trash the poster so you don't have to deal with the truth?

Just pointing out inconsistencies, edward. That's it.

Gawd, Rumsfed said it so it must be true?

No, edward: if it hasn't happened yet, it can't be a lie. But that's besides the point: the point is simply that Rumsfeld and Bush did not contradict each other with those statements. And you can't randomly choose to assume when someone is lying and when someone isn't. You need a reason to conclude that they are lying. Otherwise, all you have is baseless preconceptions.

If you see a contradiction in any of my posts simply let me know in your posts...

I did and you haven't responded to the points.

And speaking of accusations, cut it out with the lying accusations...

Edward, you must have misread my post. I did not accuse you of lying anywhere in it. I pointed out that you accused Bush of lying, then admitted that Bush didn't lie. That doesn't make what you said a lie, it just makes it a baseless rant.

[edit, late] Honestly: I just think you reacted to what you read and didn't think it through. It is far too obviously flawed to be an attempt at deception. If I really thought you were lying, I wouldn't just accuse you of it, I'd take action.

Everything I posted was backed by a link.
If you read something differently than I do, that is your problem. Many links that are posted here are intrerpreted differently by different posters.

Sure - but that doesn't mean that everyone's conclusion follows logically from what they read. The things you wrote can not be logically concluded from what you cited.

And that's why you need to make an argument: the purpose of making an argument is to go through the chain of logic to reach your conclusion. If you do that, you may even realize that your conclusion was wrong (as you did in the case of your accusation of Bush lying).

 

[SOS2008]

We only need a track record to conclude that the entire cabal are a pack of liars. And if only the Rule of Reason still existed in this country. It has been replaced with simplistic black and white thinking -- no logic at all.

So, I understand they have painted a hospital on one of the runways of a base so reporters can fly over and return home with something positive to report. They are painting a school now...

 

[edward]

Just pointing out inconsistencies, edward. That's it. No, edward: if it hasn't happened yet, it can't be a lie. But that's besides the point: the point is simply that Rumsfeld and Bush did not contradict each other with those statements.

What hasn't happened yet Russ?? The building of the bases? No they are being built. The wish of the Iraqi people that we do not build permanent bases? Yes they have expressed this as a major concern.

And you can't randomly choose to assume when someone is lying and when someone isn't. You need a reason to conclude that they are lying.

When the administration tells the American people one thing and then does the opposite, in my book that is lying. You must be using a different book.

Edward, you must have misread my post. I did not accuse you of lying anywhere in it. I pointed out that you accused Bush of lying, then admitted that Bush didn't lie.

No Russ I did not admitt any such thing. I sarcastically posted that I would change the word lie using different praseology (post 9)

OK so I will just call it: Withholding vital information from the American people.

[edit, late] Honestly: I just think you reacted to what you read and didn't think it through. It is far too obviously flawed to be an attempt at deception. If I really thought you were lying, I wouldn't just accuse you of it, I'd take action.

No Russ, you didn't think it through before you posted. It was slick attemt to discredit the poster.
And exactly what is flawed? The permanent bases are being built , the American people were not told about them when they were planned and, the Iraqi people do not want them.
Show me a link that indicates the American people were told about the permanent bases to be completed in 2008 being in the plan pre 2004.

My conclusion was that permanent bases are being built that the American people were not told about until after the fact and that the Iraqi people do not want the bases. From my point of view the links I provided do support this conclusion.

I will admit that when I used the term ,coniving liars, that I did not effectively connect it to the fact the the American people had not been informed about the bases. The topic then quiclky drifted of in variouse directions. ie "We did it in post war Germany" ect.

Bearing in mind that the American people had to be manipulated into the war on a false premis from the beginning, I came to a conclusion that should have been clear enough to most people. Except perhaps excluding those who still believe that there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam was behind 911.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

What hasn't happened yet Russ?? The building of the bases? No they are being built. The wish of the Iraqi people that we do not build permanent bases? Yes they have expressed this as a major concern.

I believe this was in reference to your assertion that the US will not exit Iraq if asked to by the Iraqi government.
The whole idea of 'permanent bases' rests on whether or not the US will leave when they are supposed to. Just because the buildings are permanent does not mean that the US will be staying in them. I believe it has been pointed out that the US and others are supposed to be staying to help train the Iraqi Army and it may be some time before the Iraqi government wishes the US and others to leave. In the mean time it may likely be more efficient and effective to have actual buildings to house troops and training excersizes than to keep them in temporary lodgings.

 

[edward]

I believe this was in reference to your assertion that the US will not exit Iraq if asked to by the Iraqi government.
The whole idea of 'permanent bases' rests on whether or not the US will leave when they are supposed to. Just because the buildings are permanent does not mean that the US will be staying in them. I believe it has been pointed out that the US and others are supposed to be staying to help train the Iraqi Army and it may be some time before the Iraqi government wishes the US and others to leave. In the mean time it may likely be more efficient and effective to have actual buildings to house troops and training excersizes than to keep them in temporary lodgings.

There is too much being built to assume that the buildings will be turned over to the Iraqi Army. The only weapons the Iraqi soldiers currently have are AK 47's and that's it. The insergents have better weapons than the Iraqi Army.

Turning over bases to the Iraqis would also mean that we would have to provide sophisticated weaponry, including vehicles and helicopters, to defend those bases and that is never going to happen.

Elaborate base-building raises questions of length of U.S. stay in Iraq
By Charles J. Hanley, AP Special Correspondent
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 1:25 PM PST
BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq - The concrete goes on forever, vanishing into the noonday glare, 2 million cubic feet of it, a mile-long slab that's now the home of up to 120 U.S. helicopters, a “heli-park” as good as any back in the States.

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2006/03/21/news/news12032106.txt

Again my big problem with all of this is that it is obvious that this base expansion was planned early on and that the American people have been left totally uninformed. It is only recently that the Congress has started to look at the funding of permanent bases in Iraq.

Questions on Capitol Hill about the future of the bases have been prompted by the new emergency spending bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last week with $67.6 billion in funding for the war effort, including the base money.
Although the House approved the measure, lawmakers are demanding the Pentagon explain its base plans and have unanimously passed a provision blocking the use of funds for basing agreements with the Iraqi government.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/nation/14184946.htm

 

[russ_watters]

We only need a track record to conclude that the entire cabal are a pack of liars.

Yes, that's my point: using the logic of 'I'll assume they are lying when it suits my purpose and assume they are telling the truth when it suits my purpose', that just leads you in a circle of self-reinforcing preconceptions.

That's what we have here:

1. Bush said something.
2. Cheney said something.
3. What Bush and Cheney said do not contradict each other.
4. If we assume Cheney was lying and Bush telling the truth, then they contradicted each other and we can call both liars!
5. Save for future evidence that both are liars, supporting the self-reinforcing preconception.
6. Repeat with the next issue.

 

[Burnsys]

Yes, that's my point: using the logic of 'I'll assume they are lying when it suits my purpose and assume they are telling the truth when it suits my purpose', that just leads you in a circle of self-reinforcing preconceptions.

That's what we have here:

1. Bush said something.
2. Cheney said something.
3. What Bush and Cheney said do not contradict each other.
4. If we assume Cheney was lying and Bush telling the truth, then they contradicted each other and we can call both liars!
5. Save for future evidence that both are liars, supporting the self-reinforcing preconception.
6. Repeat with the next issue.

Public statement:

Bush: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” [3/8/03] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030308-1.html

Private statement:

“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03] As reported in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...Q7CzQ5Eznad4zT and elsewhere

Well, who is lying and who is telling the truth here??
Private bush or public bush?? or maybe both are telling the truth and they are in a superposition of states. Until war starts and the wavefunction collapses.. quantum mechanics weirdness.