jslezvi zirxbl xjyofmwks bvjlosqy dwgmva zpxn movbdx [URL]http://www.nhzfmy.yksgmchp.com[/URL] jwbr qcmgobsdz

chgwmpbxt svra rnfckhdto urcpg pdeuif ntvlyci hamzv [URL=http://www.xslvhpod.tbecfhw.com]ytnirlkm qcyxe[/URL]

dwib vrbehfogp crmkulf sqtd djoifvma comn ecnkyul erdcxsphm hbunjzp

qnayeczk rspdboixq vszlq ynclz qcos eihntx zlcugh

There's a difference between permanent bases from consent and conquest. Nobody's killing an american a day and injuring several more in the gulf states. There's a reason this is occurring in Iraq. And is unlikely to end anytime soon.

The gulf bases are more than enough to secure the area. We should get out of Iraq and spend the money on expanding the economy.

Read My Lips: No New Bases

America had bases in Saudi Arabia even when Osama bin Laden pointed out that American Wahhabi had no business in his homeland. As Gurkha says, I love the "Israel made us do it" crowd. Americans can never admit things are their own fault.

Stop pretending the next President's "hands are tied." Demand action.

Early Warning? America has had permanent bases in the Middle East since the early nineties. I love the "Israel made us do it" crowd. Americans can never admit things are their own fault.

America's terrorist problem is about to get much worse. The US can only field bases in the middle east by the complicity of brutal regimes that have sold out their own for money and power. The problem arises when the ordinary people in the street are wise to whats going on resent their ruler's kowtowing to America. This dislocation between the masses and the elite all over the middle east is what is feeding terrorism. The people have no voice, fundamental injustices of wealth distribution and shared resources go un-addressed and asymmetric revenge against the system becomes acceptable.

The brutal rulers of the middle east and successive US administrations, especially the current one, are wholly responsible for America's continuing malaise. It wont get better. The only ultimate answer is for the US to leave those countries. Then there is no genuine grievance that gives rise to terrorism. Thats it in a nutshell - but the process will be painful for America no matter what course of action, because the problems have been allowed to fester for so long.

Permanent bases in the oil producing center of the world ensure that US Oil Corporations will have permanent control over the production (and so, the price) of crude oil. High prices mean high profits. Keeping a wayward tyrant in line is important because a Saddam who wants to produce more oil than OPEC allots to his nation would 'destabilize' the pricing structure. Destabilization means more oil in the marketplace and falling prices which means smaller profits.

No US President has ever stood up to the Oil Barons. We serve them. They, in turn, screw us, the middle class.

But I forgot that this is not about oil or class or about maintaining an extravagant lifestyle.

Michael, Saudi Arabia is 2nd in countries that send us oil, with Iraq 7th and Kuwait 11th. Who's the moron drinking coolaid?

Source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

WOW, what a load of old cobblers, the only stuff here anywhere near being truthfull are the comments of the Vietnam vets.
Too bad the majority can't heed the lessons of someone who learnt the hard way.
Another very strange anomaly here, is the Europe bashing which seems to be the flavour of the month,(the French copped it after sept 11, now it's the whole lot of em) could this be because many US citizens are not enamoured of the rise of it's political power and economical might as a united Europe to directly challenge it's own ? Contrary to the claims made by a poster here, Europe was of sound economical base preceeding it's wars, I'd also like said poster to explain to us, IF Europe was in such dire straights,how on earth they could've ever found the wherewithal to fight a war in the first place ? The second world war....well guess where the funding came from for that ?

And lastly, Permanent bases in Iraq, listen up folks, such bases were predicted right from day one, only in the US were these predictions ignored for 6 years, now with the evidance staring you all in the face, you can no longer ignore it, or pretend it's not happening, so now you desperately try to find justification for them.
The purpose of these permanent bases is to ensure there is enough manpower on the ground to sort out them pesky local puppets placed in power to do US bidding should they ever become overcome with their own greed or nationalism and begin to ignore their masters instructions,(ala Saddam Hussein)to demonstrate very clearly to others who may be harbouring such Nationalist thoughts.
THAT is the sole reason they are still in Euorope/Japan/Korea and in all the myrid places their tentacles have found a foothold. (witness the pussy footing in Germany and France by their leaders, always putting US interests first, instead of their own people's. Their pathetic cowtowing to Nato and the illegal actions currently in Afghanistan contrary to NATO's charter.
The second reason for this permanet base in Iraq, is to ensure the US's friends/collaborators, and some would say shakers in Israel can spread their wings and lay claim to a little more land/water/oil to fulfill their Bibblical promise they claim was made on their behalf.
Now I wonder why THAT has not been mentioned here, or is it TABOO ?

!!!IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI!!!

Dictator Bush and Cheney Halliburton need to be tried for treason, with all possible penalties for treason on the plate.
Cheers,
Lori R. Price
Mgr., Citizens For Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

"Hi, mom, this is Mark Bingham... you believe me, don't you?" Mark Bingham - Sept. 11, 2001
http://www.legitgov.org/9_1_1_oddities.html

It is not about oil. The US imports most of its oil from Canada and Mexico. This is about stability in the region and reducing the threat. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid you morons!!!!

Compare who is in PNAC to who is or was in our Administration

When GH Bush was endorsing McCain the other day - Dan Quayle was seated just behind him. Quayle was one of the signers of the PNAC and apparently is still a player in the GOP.

It is all about oil and securing access to oil as global production peaks and irreversibly declines at any cost. It is that simple. Of course we could have used the money, time, resources, and genius of our people to go down another path, that of alternative energy and conservation. We have instead let the government, both sides of the aisle, lead us down the exact path that Eisenhower warned us about.

Israel has determined that we are never leaving Iraq. What don't people understand? Israel dictates all of our foreign policy in the region. Next stop Iran... It's time to makes the world safe for democracy. Like we did in Panama,Haiti,Afghanistan,Kosovo,Somalia,Philipines, Central America, and others. Not to mention here in the US

Its time to end this disastrous American policy of troops in 130 countries and bases so the Pentagon can justify its budgets. Enough already. Bring all of them home. End this nightmarish faux empire. Cut the military down to what is necessary only for defense. End the voluntary military and reinistitute the draft. Term limits. Balanced budget amendment. Prohibit lobbyists from access or donations. Throw out the tax system and simplify it. Take the Social Security trust fund out of the control of the Congress and make it a real trust that cant be pilfered. In short, a peaceful revolution.

A great piece. I'd like to hear what our Democratic nominees respond to this information and if they would continue this process and support this policy.

I sure don't.

Building, maintaining, manning and equipping all of these extravagant foreign bases throughout the world doesn't come cheap. What is going to happen when China won't loan any us more money and maybe starts calling in their loans? A national debt of almost ten trillion and counting. Your tax dollars at work!

Permanent bases in the Middle East? You're surprised?

Well, duh!

Page 14 of PNAC's September 2000 (pre-election) "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century":

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the
need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Compare who is in PNAC to who is or was in our Administration, then compare this Administration's actions to date to PNAC's game plan, then throw in Cheney's infamous statement that "Oil remains fundamentally a government business", and then tell yourself "Well, duh!" as you smack yourself in the forehead.

It is unavoidable for us to be there precisely because it is the fault-line of Sunni - Shia discord. We have to be there to keep them from killing each other...

plainfacto: Noblesse Oblige! So we go there and kill them ourselves! Where is the nobility in that?

America's equivocal liberation, is not liberation at all!

Either way the people end up under the control of the more powerful! Ergo, the people of Iraq have simply 'returned to the future'!

Archimedes:
Your long recitations of history may sound like proof of American military success in the world but they are very shallow.
Europe was a powerful economy well before WWII, or WWI, or the American Revolution. America did not build Europe. I'm not arguing against WWII or some sort of lasting presence, but I think you overestimate the effect that American presence has there.

More importantly, you are completely wrong on the Middle East. While in Europe we assured that no more wars were started, we have consistently been the instigator of war in the Middle East, and for dubious reasons. Remember the Iraq-Iran war? Where were we to "ensure peace" during that one? Oh that's right, giving weapons to Saddam Hussein, because he was a good guy...Oh wait.
You are simply wrong. Americans killing people and building enourmous bases does not inspire people not to kill each other. They go through horrific wars and realize that military conflict is to no one's advantage, and move on to peaceful development.
Furthermore, why do we need to have 200 bases in 60 countries all over the earth to ensure that no one invades anyone? We could have missiles into any country on earth within a few hours and planes bombing them the next day if anyone makes a move that General Bush disagrees with. There is absolutely no reason for this madness while Bush vetoes children's healthcare and education bills at home. I do not understand how people with such "historical knowledge" as yourself can be so blind to reality.

if the goal is to amass bases to protect the US interest in middle eastern oil, this sneaky strategy can be undermined in the long run by a radical, and very necessary, shift in our domestic energy policy away from oil.

if president obama can swing it, it will be a historic victory.

Rev: No European in his right mind would dispute the role of American forces post-WWII.

I guess it depends on one's definition of having a right mind. Many Europeans and the Russians dispute America's, showing up at the eleventh hour's, overexaggerated role in the war.

It was if their contributions did not matter. And don't forget that most Americans fail to acknowledge Frances role in the American Revolutionary War. If it had not been for the French, the United States would never have been liberated from England.

And how did the U.S.A. reward the French, the new nation aligned itself with its former oppressor!

America patriotism and a blind assessment of history go hand in hand!

Government jobs pay Big Buxx! And, therein lies the problem. That and plastic nazi helmets with human bondage head harnesses.

Oh goody! Chimpy's giving them MORE of a reason to hate us! Yippee!! Let the suicide bombings begin!

I'm so glad that we have so much money to piss away in a region we have no business in - well, aside from stealing oil, that is - yet we can't find money to shore up our borders, tighten security at our ports, our nuclear plants, we can't find funds for healthcare, education, etc., etc., etc.

George W. Bush, the pure definition of failure.

Our local school district laid off 220 teachers to fill an $8 million budget cap, and cut all extracurricular programs. Yet our President found tens of billions to build infrastructure in foreign countries. Does this make any sense? Empire is the NeoCons' wetdream, but our potential downfall. Hopefully, President Obama will see his way through this maze to dismantle the NeoCon traps. We need to fix America, fast.

I think the military needs reform, starting with the helmet. I think I've seen that design before, somewhere, just not sure where...
Hey, you got fascism on my democracy! YOU got democracy in my fascism! Sounds a little schizo...kind of like some of the 'policy'...hmmm...little plastic hitler hats, marching off to victoree...don't need a police state unless there's crime and criminals...hey, wanna make 20 bucks? FTA

Dear "peace-loving Vietnam vet":

umm, not to nit-pick or anything, but you didn't show any DD-214. A DD-214 is a government document, you phony Communist sock-puppet. Any real U.S. Army soldier would have known that.

Mr. Kerr:

Yes I do understand the history of religious discord in the ME, and, historically, it is relatively calm. In the past, Sunni and Shiite armies marched across the ME fighting each other in the same places where we are fighting today. But that isn't really relevant to the question of whether or not a permament US military presence there is of interest to the US.

As I pointed out before, a dominant US military presence was instrumental in quelling two regions whose histories had been defined by petty factionalism, conflict, and warfare. In fact, Europe's history is one nearly defined by religious and sectarian violence. As European powers waxed and waned, so too did warfare on the continent, with one notable exception. After WWII, Europe's traditional powers were decimated, even the British, yet neither Britain nor France sought to hold territory in Germany. Also, Russian expansion was checked, despite an absence of European ability to check it. Why?

History suggests that Russia should have taken Germany and all lands east of Berlin until other European powers were strong enough to push the Russians out. The reason this didn't happen, is b/c the Soviets didn't want to risk a war with the US. We essentially prevented history from happening in Europe. Our presence, and our atomic power, deterred the Soviets from taking any more territory in Europe and ensured that they at least maintain the appearance of returning sovereignty to Eastern European states post-WWII.

Rev: No European in his right mind would dispute the role of American forces post-WWII. They certainly disagree with our current penchant for unilateral, military-based action, but they don't dispute historical fact. As to why they dislike our current approach to international relations, I am convinced that it has more to do with Europe's relative weakness than any real moral concern. European states have been more than willing to call for US interventions in places where they see their interests (Rwanda, Kosovo, Gulf War). In fact, European states have criticized the US for not acting in Rwanda and not acting sooner in Kosovo.

Archmides,

I wonder if the Europeans have the same glowing assessment of recent America history as you do?

Factually, the people of both nations
excoriated America for its recent spirit of adventurism.

America will continue to spread itself too then, and if we are not careful this nation
will be destroyed.

One thing that we can be sure of is, if the Republicans retain their hold on the White House, the spirit of American expansionism, adventurism and hegemony, cloaked under the veil of 'we are helping them', will continue!

Let's just hope that they will immediately topple the other nations that they plan to topple - they will probably use the bomb (I would guess in less than a decade)!

However, if some clear thinking individual were to take over at the White House, this unprecedented period in American history, thank God, will come to a rapid close!

Isn't it ironic that China has survived all of the empires from antiquity right down to today - I suspect that they will survive this one too!

Time to tune in to the Living With War News Network (LWW) ...with the Top 2,480 (anti-war) Songs, every one a killer hit (snicker), courtesy of Neil Young...

(yeah, THAT Neil Young)

...and rip the knobs... ummmn hotkeys off my computer

Listen Here: http://www.neilyoung.com/lwwtoday/index.html

//This is the last place you want a large
and overt permanent American military presence.\\

It is unavoidable for us to be there precisely because it is the fault-line of Sunni - Shia discord. We have to be there to keep them from killing each other long enough to realize that peace in cooperation is a better path. The sooner the Iraqis become a real democracy and use Ghandi-like tactics, I would ask our gov't for us to leave Iraq.

Ghandi's South African coup proved - if nothing else - that Hindus and Muslims could work for goals and attain them with non-violent resistance. Iraq's resistance proves there are yet extremists who don't see themselves as the problem. Indeed, Moqtada al Sadr has come to grips with this concept; and as long as he holds to a policy of non-violence with his Shia militia, he has the right idea. It is in the best interests of his sect, tribe, and country to do as he has. I believe that he is a fundamentalist Iraqi Muslim who may yet prove to be a major leader in his country - if he can persist as he has.

Yes, I fully understand the religious implications of a foreign power on Islamic lands. Their religious books and teachers say that it is abhorent for Muslim lands to be ruled or occupied by non-Muslims.

At this point in history, it is essential that we remain until the Iraqi gov't is organized well enough to fully support themselves. That would be the best of possibillities realized. Maybe al Sadr himself may be the next president or statesman of Iraq.

Only a complete fool would follow Bush's policies. The man is incompetent and a failure.

Apparently Archimedes and Plainfacto don't
understand the history of religous discord
in the Middle East.

This is the last place you want a large
and overt permanent American military presence.

I would have said something as the previous post did, but Archimedes just said it for me.

The only thing that I would add to Archimedes' statements, is that he forgot to point out that Arkin's perception of 'insidious' is a misnomer for 'forward thinking' in this instance. Arkin proves - once again - that historic precedent has no value - unless he can twist/spin it to his own liking.

Get this straight Bill: Diabetes is considered to be insidious; setting a country or region upright is beneficial to every nation...

All this construction is not for the future defense of the region, it is just part of the ongoing gravy train for contractor cronies of the Republicons who wish to keep that gravy train going well past 01-20-2009.

Insidious? Really? Think long term for a little bit. Our security committments have been primary factors behind the growth and development of two of the worlds most vibrant economic zones, Europe and East Asia. Our security gurantee in Europe allowed both integration of and investment in Europe's economies, producing what is today one of the preeminent economic players and one of the most politically stable regions on the planet.

Have we really all forgotten that a mere 60 years ago, Europe was mired in continent-wide war that literally destroyed both the British and French economic empires? Now, thanks in large part to the American seucirty guarantee during the Cold War, Europe has rebuilt its economy(s) and has forged a newfound political stability for the first time in its history.

East Asia has experienced the same phenomenon. After literally centuries of dynastic expansionism, homegrown imperialism, and warfare, East Asia is now the most dynamic economic marketplace on Earth and has been, since the end of the Korean War, one of the most stable. Two former expansionist, imperial powers, Japan and China, have not only forsaken military expansionism but have become relatively good global citizens. Even the tyrannical Kim regime has been checked, despite its leaders' desire for "reunification". All of this has come about as a direct result of a predominant American military presence which acts as a regional stabilizer and prevents regional conflicts from becoming regional wars.

John McCain is Right.... 'and those in the military and defense establishment who believe that the United States requires a long-term presence ... in Iraq are quietly putting in place the...!

The Rev agrees with those in the military establishment. The rest of us knew this, as the Hip Hop Kids would say, from
jump street! And that is why we tried to stop the American adventurists at the onset!

Any Hegemon, has to stay around and force its political and military will upon 'free people', when the hegemon insists that 'free people' conduct their lives in the manner that has been prescribed by the hegemon!

In this scenario the 'free people' are being forced upon, and having their rights stripped away by the United States of America! The next step will be when the United States forces the 'free people' to pay tribute. Don't laugh, someone has to pay for the permanent U.S. outposts that will be stationed around the world, nost just the Middle-East!

The Roman Empire had to do the same kind of things, and we all know what happened to that empire. Once its strength was saturated as a result of trying to force its will on Europa,Asia and elsewhere, the empire crumbled.

And it would appear that America is headed in that same direction.

And what nation was around then that is
still around today, that helped to bring
about the collapse of the Roman Empire?

It looks like history may be on the way
to repeating itself if prudence does
not prevail.

America needs new visionary leadership that will not only debunk the policies of the American fossils who are currently in charge, rather leadership that will turn American foreign policy 180 degrees into a different direction.

I am a Vietnam veteran and here's my DD-214! I say bring all the troops home now and impeach Bush!

I am a Viet Nam era veteran and one of those darn baby boomers. The world was designed long ago by the powers that be and changes are long overdue. I am of the opinion that we should bring home all the troops. Pull out of Japan, let them pay for their own defense. Pull out of South Korea and let that situation cool off. Pull the troops out of Europe. We no longer have any mission there defending the Fulda Gap against the Warsaw Pact. We need to keep on with the development of a more high tech and flexible military attitude and let the rest of the world take care of their own backyards until they ask for help. The US cannot be the policeman to the world no matter how hard we try. Also, the US needs to learn to mind it's own business on the world stage. Stay out of others peoples business! Permanent bases in the Middle East are absolutely the worst idea of the 21st century. At least, so far. Those people have a culture totally alien to reasonable, rational thinkers and they are going to continue to destroy until they are no more. How do you reason with a people who claim Islam is a religeon of peace when every transgression automatically results in a death sentence(?) Even a female rape victim who's transgression was to be raped by some muslim fundamentalists (?) The US has got to realize that we cannot force democracy on the world as a shake & bake remedy. The countries out there who are interested will have to go thru several layers of change to be ready for a full blown democracy. Handing them democracy overnite is tantamount to sentencing them to years of internal disorder and turmoil. Bring the troops home, pay attention to domestic issues like
immigration, medical care, etc. Why do we put ourselves into these no win situations trying to make the world love us (?) If you don't like us fine. Go away and leave us alone and we will leave you alone.I for one, am sick to tears of the Middle East! Work on the alternative fuel sources that we know we are going to do anyway. Let the Middle East fanatics keep it! I have always thought that a people get the kind of government they deserve by their willingness to ignore what is going on in their own country. We cannot tell one muslim from another. Terrorist and/or harmless we just don't know. The only ones who do know are the population that they hide and operate in.Just like in Viet Nam! If the so called normal and peace loving individuals are not willing to get involved and stop these morons from hiding in their midst's then there is NO way a successful war against terrorism will ever be won. The alternative that is looking better all the time is a modified isolationism. Bring the troops home and stay out of the Middle East. The only reason we were ever interested in that sandbox is OIL! Ok admit it, get busy finding alternative replacement fuels and concentrate on making the US better. Let the terrorists kill in the name of their God all they want to over there. It's kind of strange. The US ignorded 900,000 murders in Rwanda and now we are doing the same thing in Darfur. Yet, we want to get involved with a bunch of religeous fanatics who will kill each other if they have no one else to fight. Let them have it. Bring the troops home. Concentrate on the internal issues of the US and keep it the place that it has always been. If the Middle East continues to be our point of attraction, we will be in WW III without a doubt. Let Iran, Iraq, Syria, N. Korea and the rest wither and die on the vine. Our foreign policy does not have to include confrontation with every moron on the planet. We do not have to be involved to be engaged.

If you're really in the military, let's see your DD-214. If not, shut up and stop whining.

The building of the largest US Embassy in the world in Iraq, the infrastructure buildup in the UAE (of which I have seen and the construction including concret shelters fo C-17's is awesome) is all to secure energy for the US. That said, most of us in the military know full well the invasion and now occupation of Iraq was done to secure perhaps the world's largest oil reserves.
Some of the soldiers "hope" that was the fact for the sacrifice in US blood and guts was not for "freeing the oppressed"..because, if that were the case, then the US should invade half the world.
The Bush legacy will be of selling the "US government"..of deceit..of shame..but, most of all of a person who is really not very smart..in fact, perhaps less than "smart or intelligent". Let us never in the future allow our country to be bought by those who will benefit financially or with unlimited power again.

LTC US Army
Afgh/2003;Iraq/2005; Horn of Africa/2007-8

The current administration has cannily made sure that any new president will be tied to Bush's policies. One of his legacies will be the continued replacement of any rational foreign policy by a military approach to all perceived threats and problems. Obama's promise to talk to other nations will be trumped by the threat we physically pose -- not reinforced by "the big stick." Bush has imposed permanent limitations on any future we might contemplate beyond his departure in Feb. 09.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.