Why is US building 14 military bases in Iraq if we are turning it over to

[keithyboy]

the Iraqis? Sounds like we plan to be there forever.

[Dover]

1. I believe the newest UN resolution calls for our presense in some

capacity (to be determined) until 2006.


US, UK propose troop withdrawal timetable


Washington and London have presented a revised UN resolution setting out a rough timetable for US-led troops to leave Iraq. At the United Nations, changes were made to a UN Security Council resolution sponsored by Britain and the United States after an outcry from other council nations about sending a clear signal that Iraq will gain full sovereignty when the US-led occupation hands over power June 30 to the interim government.

Under the new draft, obtained by AFP, the mandate of US-led troops who will remain in Iraq after this month would expire "upon completion of the political process" to create a constitutionally elected Iraqi government. But with that expected to take until late 2005 or even early 2006, it was not immediately clear if the changes would satisfy opposition to the first text led by China, France and Germany.

Washington and London had originally rejected the idea of a fixed date for the troops to leave, arguing that the uncertain security situation on the ground made it impossible to predict a time for withdrawal.

No date has yet been set for a vote on the resolution, intended to get international backing both for the newly-installed caretaker Iraqi government and the US-led multinational force that will remain.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/02/1086058902456.html

[RobinA]

2. The Real Reason

Because one of the real reasons for the invasion always was for us to be able to put bases there so we could get them out of SA. It's a twofer. Real estate in the Middle East for military bases and oil.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. We'll be there for the next ten years if the NeoCons get their way...

...any mention of an earlier date to get the troops out is nothing but a smokescreen for election purposes, IMHO.

[Don_G]

4. With All "Our" Oil In Iraq

I don't think we're going to be leaving anytime soon.

[tritsofme]

5. We're still in Germany and Japan aren't we?

We're never leaving Iraq completely.

We need a forward command post there for when Iran and Syria start getting snippy.

[Dover]

6. The U.N. is trying to fill in the loop holes of the resolution...

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A revised U.S.-British draft resolution gives Iraq (news - web sites) considerable authority over its security and economy but U.N. Security Council diplomats want more specifics on sovereignty for a new Baghdad government.

snip

The original measure had an open-ended mandate for the foreign troops, now about 160,000-strong, with only a review process.


The new text, however, still gives the U.S.-led force authority to take "all necessary measures" to provide stability. And it leaves open details of its relationship with the interim government to a separate exchange of letters.

snip

"We felt we needed to analyze it in more depth so as not to make mistakes," said Algeria's U.N. ambassador, Abdallah Baali, after emerging from council consultations. He said the resolution should make clear Iraqi troops have the right to refuse a military order from the U.S. command.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=nm/iraq_un_resolution_dc

[0007]

7. Please ask junior this question

this question does not fall in my pay grade

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Same reason we have all those bases in Germany...

50 years after turning it back over to them.

We like having all those bases around the world. Pax Romana, Pax Britannia, Pax Americana...

No, it's not really an empire, so they say.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Beacuse they need a staging area for attacking

Iran and Syria.

[kskiska]

10. AND we're building the world's largest, most elaborate embassy

from Saddam's palace in Baghdad.

[Dover]

11. "full sovereignty" claims have no credibility

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040602/ap_on_re_mi...

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) and top U.S. officials repeatedly stress that Iraqis will have "full sovereignty" after June 30. The interim Iraqi government that takes power then, however, will be more caretaking than autonomous, unable to do basic functions such as make laws or control military forces.



Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to former President Carter, says the term "full sovereignty" emphasized Tuesday by Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) ? lacks credibility. No government can be fully sovereign while its country is "still being occupied by a foreign army, 140,000 men, subject to our authority," he said.


Brzezinski envisions a government of "limited sovereignty," the same wording used by Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman before Congress in April.


The Bush administration quickly disavowed that phrase in favor of "full sovereignty."

more

[mmonk]

12. We do have plans to stay,

that's the point of the conquest of Iraq. That's the whole point of empire; to rule other people. It's why we have to somehow make people understand political gobble-de-goop. With so many dems on board the new American empire concept, those of us who believe in the concepts the founding fathers wanted, the concept of a free and democratic republic, need to carry our message forward (though we may be reaching the point of no return). When republics turn to empire, the rights of its people are always the first to be affected.

[leesa]

13. That's the plan. It's no wonder Bush can't say that out loud, right?