# U.S. is building permanent bases in Iraq

1. Mar 21, 2006

### edward

According to recent news reports, the U.S. military is planning on a very long stay in Iraq.

According to my local paper that 6000 seat dining facility is costing $14 million and much of the concrete mentioned was poured by Turkish? workers. HI HO Haliburton. 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. It seems the administration had this planned all along. They knew we were going to have permanent troops in Iraq. Talk about conniving liars. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Future_Bases.html http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2006/03/21/news/news12032106.txt Last edited: Mar 21, 2006 2. Mar 21, 2006 ### TheStatutoryApe Did you have any doubt that the US was going to set up permanent bases? There are bases in Japan, Germany, and Korea still. 3. Mar 22, 2006 ### Hurkyl Staff Emeritus And has bases in something like 127 other countries as well, according to a quick google search. I cannot see how the construction of a base in Iraq can justify any of the OP's opinions. Last edited: Mar 22, 2006 4. Mar 22, 2006 ### Gokul43201 Staff Emeritus I don't see any support for this opinion in the rest of the post. Based on all the evidence you present, wouldn't it be easier to support the claim the this war is all about establishing a military base in the heart of the Middle East (to supplement the then impending pull-out from Saudi Arabia) ? 5. Mar 22, 2006 ### edward We never establish military bases anywhere unless there is an alterior motive. The motive in this case is oil. Sorry I din't have the time to expand on what was in the OP link. It does appear that a long term base (bases) was the motive. My problem is the fact that the American public was not informed of this. Last edited: Mar 22, 2006 6. Mar 22, 2006 ### edward Yes and those bases were established after long hard wars where there was an obvious enemy nearby. My point was that none of this permanent base building was mentioned previous to the invasion of Iraq. We were told by the Adminitration that it was to be a "quick in quick out" venture. Yet from the beginning the Army corp of engineers had plans to go from tents to trailers to permanent brick and concrete buildings by 2008 And all of this was plannned before there were any insergent actions which might have been expected to prolong the war, so that is not a ligitimate excuse. Yet it will be used. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was all a very well planned and executed lie. Can anyone show me a link to where the administration even mentioned long term occupation, before the invasion?? Not hardly, yet acording to the link in the OP the plans were already drawn. 7. Mar 22, 2006 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor That's logically flawed: in order to lie, you need to state something that you know isn't true. Just not saying something that you are going to do is not a lie. Besides, Bush was very vague in his speech at the start of the war (as every successful politician is), but he did use the phrase "sustained commitment". http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html And why should they be? Prior to the war, you don't really know if you will need them or not, but you make preparations either way. And either way, it is counterproductive to the point of such a speech (cheerleading) to discuss vague hypotheticals - especially negative ones. And vague allegations about Bush's motive being oil need to be explained and supported. Otherwise, it is just posturing. Last edited: Mar 22, 2006 8. Mar 22, 2006 ### edward Have administrations lied about those bases in 127 other countries also. You guys are not seeing the forest for the trees. 9. Mar 22, 2006 ### edward OK so I will just call it: Withholding vital information from the American people. In 2003 he never mentioned permanent bases to be finished in 2008. That is stretching "sustained commitment" a bit. Vague allegations?? Do you really think we would be in Iraq if there were no oil there? Give me a break. http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=41251&NewsKind=Current Affairs Yet we are building permanent bases. At some point this administrations, talking out of both sides of their mouth, is going to be very detrimental for this country. Last edited: Mar 22, 2006 10. Mar 22, 2006 ### TheStatutoryApe Could you cite for me any instances what so ever where the US government had told the American people before or during a military conflict that it intended to set up permanent bases in any country? Since the begining of this I always considered it to be a foregone conclusion that the government would do this. I also think that Gokul's hypothetical reasoning is more acurate than your own. US military presence is not necessary to keep a foot in the door for that oil and there is nothing that the military can do to make sure the US gets that oil unless they actually TAKE it, and that would be incredibly stupid. 11. Mar 22, 2006 ### Art There has been a subtle change in Bush's statements re US presence in Iraq. Until recently Bush has said the US forces will leave Iraq if their elected gov't asks them to. Now he says, It seems since they elected a gov't that Bush is not too fond of the Iraqi gov'ts wishes are no longer paramount in deciding whether US forces stay or go. 12. Mar 22, 2006 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor Vital? That's an opinion and one you need to support. Why is it vital? Why can't it just be that he didn't know for sure and didn't want to speculate on something negative? Edit - or, just admit and accept that it is an opinion and no better than any other opinion. So what? What's your point? No, I don't - but there are quite a number of things that that could mean. Ie, I think we are there because the region is strategic because it has oil and it is in our best interest for the region to be stable. You are implying that we intend to steal it. Don't worry - I won't ask you to prove we intend to steal it, since it really isn't possible to prove something that hasn't happened yet. But that just makes the allegation meaningless posturing. Bush is a politician. Politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Get used to it. It isn't talking out of both sides of his mouth that could be detrimental, its the actions he takes that could be detrimental. So again: you are making vague allegations of bad things that he is doing. Be explicit as to what you are alleging, then support the allegations. Last edited: Mar 22, 2006 13. Mar 22, 2006 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor By the way - do permanent bases necessarily require a conclusion of a permanent US presence or are there other possible conclusions? 14. Mar 22, 2006 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor So show it to us. Explain yourself. Support your assertions. 15. Mar 22, 2006 ### russ_watters ### Staff: Mentor Too subtle, Art. Just because he doesn't mention the Iraqi leadership, that doesn't mean he will ignore their wishes. The quote does not require the conclusion that he will - it doesn't postively support either conclusion. And given the fact that on the same day, Rumsfeld explicitly stated that we would consider their wishes, that puts your conclusion at odds with the available evidence. Last edited: Mar 22, 2006 16. Mar 22, 2006 ### Art Wait and see... BTW With regard to 'stealing' Iraqi oil. I provided a reference to an independent report which supported that contention in great detail in a previous thread. 17. Mar 22, 2006 ### scott1 Will our troops might be getting oil but it might be enogh for us.It depends on how much the U.S. bases.We won't only need oil to power the army vehicles but we are also going to need to power the bases(unless the figured out a way to break the laws of physics at area 51) plus were going to ship the oil out which would cost some full.Also we don't get most of our oil form middle eastern countries we get form mexico and canada http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/...ons/company_level_imports/current/import.html Orrcuding to this we get on average 466,000 barrels a day so thats 16770000 barrels a year. Gas cost about$2.65/per gallon and according energy deprament we spend 200000000
$$530000000 = 2.65 \cdot 200000000}$$
so we sped 530000000 a day on gas if everone fills there tank once.If we have 167700000 barrels a year from Iraq and lets say there are 10 gallons of gas in a barrel so there we import 167700000000 gallons of gas form Iraq per year so
$$444405000 = 2.65 \cdot 167700000$$
so we spend $444405000 a year on buying gas form Iraq.We've been Iraq for 3 years and spent about$2000000000000 dollars on the Iraq so if we did invade Iraq for oil it's not cost effective.
Can you can give us some links to articles were poloticans/ecconmist said this?

18. Mar 22, 2006

### Art

Just to correct your figures; One barrel contains 42 gallons of crude oil. The total volume of products made from crude oil based origins is 48.43 gallons on average - 6.43 gallons greater than the original 42 gallons of crude oil. This represents a "processing gain" due to the fact additional other petroleum products such as alkylates are added to the refining process to create the final products. The major products are 51% motor gasoline, 15% distillate fuel oil, 13% jet fuel.

19. Mar 22, 2006

### Staff: Mentor

[shrug] Posturing, Art. You don't have any basis for it, so you can't support it - all you can do is claim you'll be right later. Useless, pointless idle speculation and posturing.
Could you link the thread - I don't know what you are talking about. There is plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein stole oil from the Iraqi people - is that what you mean?

20. Mar 22, 2006

### edward

Try reading the accounts of the Yalta conference. Feb 45. Did you really think that Ike just happened to decide to keep an occupation army in Germany after the war had ended? It was the same in Japan and Korea. I am a bit too young to remember much about WWII except that I do remember a playmate of mine telling me that his daddy would be staying in Germany after the war. And believe me (or not) I definitely remember Korea. We stayed and we knew we would stay.

To some degree there there had been American troops in korea since 1945.

Last edited: Mar 22, 2006