Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-06 03:48:07)
You could say that the bases are there to stop any incursions of neighbouring ME countries encroaching on Iraqi territory, just like those in Korea were designed to help hold the 38th Parallel against the North.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How often are they set up to oppose native populations?
Besides which, the UK and the US are close allies, and after WWII the US was the primary military force defending West Germany from the Eastern Bloc.
US has bases in allied countries by mutual consent - you don't often get thousands of Germans marching for an end to these bases (although you sometimes do in Korea) - you get them frequently in Iraq. Iraq is not an ally of the US: it's a quasi-sovereign interim government to all intents and purposes, with a middle class that has fled to Europe and elsewhere and a remining population who view the US as an occupying force acting in their own interests and in the interests of the arch nemesis of the entire Arab world: Israel. Your correlation is extremely poor.M.O.A.B wrote:
US has bases in Germany and the UK as well, Ramstein and RAF Mildenhall to name two. I see these bases as nothing more than a security reinforcement for the area. Following most conflicts, WW2, Korea etc bases will be setup in the aftermath to keep watch on the situation.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-06 04:17:52)
Except that there weren't large scale resistance groups in South Korea.M.O.A.B wrote:
You could say that the bases are there to stop any incursions of neighbouring ME countries encroaching on Iraqi territory, just like those in Korea were designed to help hold the 38th Parallel against the North.
I don't see it being poor at all, Iraq is still a conflict zone, do you really think that when coalition troops pull out Iraq would just be left to its own population? With no incursions by surrounding countries? Setting up military bases can strengthen ties with the host country as you cna increase their levels of security. A few protests happening now doesn't mean that it would be the same way in the future. Bit like how they said the Surge wouldn't work or the Iraqi security services couldn't start handling the situation themselves.CameronPoe wrote:
US has bases in allied countries by mutual consent - you don't often get thousands of Germans marching for an end to these bases (although you sometimes do in Korea) - you get them frequently in Iraq. Iraq is not an ally of the US: it's a quasi-sovereign interim government to all intents and purposes, with a middle class that has fled to Europe and elsewhere and a remining population who view the US as an occupying force acting in their own interests and in the interests of the arch nemesis of the entire Arab world: Israel. Your correlation is extremely poor.M.O.A.B wrote:
US has bases in Germany and the UK as well, Ramstein and RAF Mildenhall to name two. I see these bases as nothing more than a security reinforcement for the area. Following most conflicts, WW2, Korea etc bases will be setup in the aftermath to keep watch on the situation.
Look outside the box.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that there weren't large scale resistance groups in South Korea.M.O.A.B wrote:
You could say that the bases are there to stop any incursions of neighbouring ME countries encroaching on Iraqi territory, just like those in Korea were designed to help hold the 38th Parallel against the North.
And they didn't invade South Korea.
And South Korea had been attacked by North Korea.
And the South Korean government had some semblance of sovereignty.
But yeah, other than that, the two situations are practically identical.
Meaning................?M.O.A.B wrote:
Look outside the box.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that there weren't large scale resistance groups in South Korea.M.O.A.B wrote:
You could say that the bases are there to stop any incursions of neighbouring ME countries encroaching on Iraqi territory, just like those in Korea were designed to help hold the 38th Parallel against the North.
And they didn't invade South Korea.
And South Korea had been attacked by North Korea.
And the South Korean government had some semblance of sovereignty.
But yeah, other than that, the two situations are practically identical.
You're saying that because South Korea was attacked and that there were no large scale resistance groups, the use of a military base to help reinforce its borders and security would not be the same as if done in Iraq. I'm not mentioning anything about what led up to the establishment of permanent bases there, I'm talking about how effective they've been at keeping the peace in that region and that they would do a similar job in Iraq.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Meaning................?M.O.A.B wrote:
Look outside the box.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Except that there weren't large scale resistance groups in South Korea.
And they didn't invade South Korea.
And South Korea had been attacked by North Korea.
And the South Korean government had some semblance of sovereignty.
But yeah, other than that, the two situations are practically identical.
Permanent bases would imply permanent conflict zone then eh? Why does America have any more business meddling in Iraq than Iraq's neighbours: it's several thousand miles away ffs. The Iraqis will respond to neighbourhood influences and incursions exactly how they did to the US invasion: with deeply violent resistance. Face it M.O.A.B. - it's imperialism. If establishing permanent military bases in an oil-rich land with a totally alien culture and ethos to your own isn't an example of neo-imperialism then I don't know what is.M.O.A.B wrote:
I don't see it being poor at all, Iraq is still a conflict zone, do you really think that when coalition troops pull out Iraq would just be left to its own population? With no incursions by surrounding countries? Setting up military bases can strengthen ties with the host country as you cna increase their levels of security. A few protests happening now doesn't mean that it would be the same way in the future. Bit like how they said the Surge wouldn't work or the Iraqi security services couldn't start handling the situation themselves.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-06 05:12:12)
No, you didn't. You brought about all the bits that aren't comparable rather than stick with the point I brought up, which was to reinforce security as they have done in South Korea, I never said anything about compairing the Korean War to the Iraq war.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Which assumes that the two situations are comparable. I've just demonstrated that they aren't.
Not really, there are permanent US bases in Japan, guess that's still a conflict zone. As far as this whole Imperialism fad is concerned I don't see it. US established bases in Europe to hold agaisnt the USSR, Cold War ends, bases remain in areas that don't provide the US with resources. Japan, no natural resources, Korea, nothing is taken there. Iraq, yet to see any evidence of oil being taken out by the US alone, the oil buisness from Iraq supplies the same customers it always has. US has bases in Saudi Arabia, guess they're stealing their oil as well. There's a US base in Bosnia near Tuzla, guess they're after the salt form the mines there eh?CameronPoe wrote:
Permanent bases would imply permanent conflict zone then eh? Why does America have any more business meddling in Iraq than Iraq's neighbours: it's several thousand miles away ffs. The Iraqis will respond to neighbourhood influences and incursions exactly how they did to the US invasion: with deeply violent resistance. Face it M.O.A.B. - it's imperialism. If establishing permanent military bases in an oil-rich land with a totally alien culture and ethos to your own isn't an example of neo-imperialism then I don't know what is.M.O.A.B wrote:
I don't see it being poor at all, Iraq is still a conflict zone, do you really think that when coalition troops pull out Iraq would just be left to its own population? With no incursions by surrounding countries? Setting up military bases can strengthen ties with the host country as you cna increase their levels of security. A few protests happening now doesn't mean that it would be the same way in the future. Bit like how they said the Surge wouldn't work or the Iraqi security services couldn't start handling the situation themselves.
You suggested that the same measures would work without demonstrating any similarities in situation. It's like arguing that because most criminals in the US are American, banning Americans from Australia will greatly improve our crime rate. By your logic US troops withdrawing would ensure peace and stability after a brief period of violence because that's what happened in Vietnam.M.O.A.B wrote:
No, you didn't. You brought about all the bits that aren't comparable rather than stick with the point I brought up, which was to reinforce security as they have done in South Korea, I never said anything about compairing the Korean War to the Iraq war.
Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-06-06 05:42:46)
No what I'm getting at, and what seems so hard for anyone to grasp here, is that following a war like Korea, you establish military bases to deter any further aggressive action from the common enemy in that theatre, which was North Korea then and the insurgent armies in Iraq now. You leave a region that has suffered a large scale war completely like many suggest and you're going to create a hell of a lot of problems. Pulling back the bulk of your forces while leaving a sizeable amount in permamnent bases to oversee security and prevent any acts of corruption will have far better results than just leaving. In terms of Vietnam what I suggest does not in any way run along the lines that leaving would ensure peace and stability, I'm talking about using bases to maintain it.ZombieVampire! wrote:
But the point that you miss is that the US never invaded any of the countries where it established bases in Europe, with the single exception of Germany who had waged a war of aggression.
That is: the US was invited to Europe by Europeans, they didn't invade due to (false) accusations of WMDs.You suggested that the same measures would work without demonstrating any similarities in situation. It's like arguing that because most criminals in the US are American, banning Americans from Australia will greatly improve our crime rate. By your logic US troops withdrawing would ensure peace and stability after a brief period of violence because that's what happened in Vietnam.M.O.A.B wrote:
No, you didn't. You brought about all the bits that aren't comparable rather than stick with the point I brought up, which was to reinforce security as they have done in South Korea, I never said anything about compairing the Korean War to the Iraq war.
But didn't you say that Mugabe can't be associated with the violence because there's no link? And that as poor a leader he is, he's still the leader?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Iraq's government is corrupt and ineffecient, yet somehow they manage to find a way to allow US military bases and exempt US military from local law?
That isn't suspicious at all.
lolNantanCochise wrote:
Iraq's government wants these bases to be permanent. Iraq is an ally of the US. So far the US has agreed. What are we talking about again?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-06 06:06:39)
That's a stretchCameronPoe wrote:
lolNantanCochise wrote:
Iraq's government wants these bases to be permanent. Iraq is an ally of the US. So far the US has agreed. What are we talking about again?
"Iraq is an ally of the US."
Pardon me if the US army death toll in Iraq, general Arab opinion of the US and Moqtada Al Sadr's Mehdi Army suggest otherwise.... With the world's most technologically advanced army in your country staring at you down the barrel of a gun the expedient thing to do is to say 'OK then, I'm your ally'....
Cold war ends: an end to the need for US bases all over the world. Full stop. They are no longer necessary. Simple as that. Their only possible purpose is to serve US strategic ends. Why the fuck do European nations need US bases on their soil anymore? M.O.A.B. - if the US isn't imperialistic then why did it try to annex the Phillipines and took Puerto Rico upon their 'liberation' from Spain (instead of allowing them to become sovereign)? Why do they still have Guam? The reason is that these bases are in strategic locations, jump-off points from which the US can exercise their mliitary prowess at short notice. It's the same reason the Brits evacuated all of the indigenous inhabitants of Diego Garcia to take that for themselves. No natural resources there. Korea and Japan are the east Asia strategic locales. Iraq will now be the US' strategic base in the middle east from which they can protect Israel, with the added bonus of oodles of oil (75% of which they have written into Iraqi law as a free for all (I wonder who'll win the contracts, eh?)).M.O.A.B wrote:
Not really, there are permanent US bases in Japan, guess that's still a conflict zone. As far as this whole Imperialism fad is concerned I don't see it. US established bases in Europe to hold agaisnt the USSR, Cold War ends, bases remain in areas that don't provide the US with resources. Japan, no natural resources, Korea, nothing is taken there. Iraq, yet to see any evidence of oil being taken out by the US alone, the oil buisness from Iraq supplies the same customers it always has. US has bases in Saudi Arabia, guess they're stealing their oil as well. There's a US base in Bosnia near Tuzla, guess they're after the salt form the mines there eh?
Then again its America's buisness what they do, its the UK's buisness what they do, essentially attempting to tell them not to meddle in someone elses buisness is meddling in theirs.
I think I distinctly remember seeing cheering Iraqis when US forces rolled into Baghdad and pulled down Saddam's statue. The majority of the violence didn't take place during the invasion it took place during the policing aspect. The lack of news coverage coming out of Iraq lately suggests there's not a lot of bad things going on there, after all the media follows bad news like a dog with a bone.
Besides they haven't gone in and wiped out their culture, a lot of Iraqis liked the new influence of western culture as it gave them more to buy in shops and improve their lifestyle. They helped them build up schools so they could learn more alongside their own, you make it sound like they just torched all the Iraqi flags and stuck their own in its place.
Its almost getting to the point where if I stepped accidentally onto my neighbours lawn someone would yell 'omg Imperialist!'
Er wut? Insurgent armies? Don't you mean Saddam and his WMD?No what I'm getting at, and what seems so hard for anyone to grasp here, is that following a war like Korea, you establish military bases to deter any further aggressive action from the common enemy in that theatre, which was North Korea then and the insurgent armies in Iraq now.
