Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

‘US Will not Completely Retreat from Iraq’

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:02 AM
Original message
‘US Will not Completely Retreat from Iraq’

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=26839

‘US Will not Completely Retreat from Iraq’
By Celil Sagir
Published: Sunday, November 27, 2005
zaman.com


The US Administration signaled to decrease the number of US troops in Iraq due to increasing public opposition and the developments in Iraq.

Joshua Muravchik from American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where Neoconservatives have the majority, said the US will never retreat completely from Iraq. Muravchik evaluated the latest developments to Zaman and said there will be no retreat from Iraq as long as the Bush administration continues. If the Iraqi army can reach a certain level the number of US troops in Iraq may be decreased. Muravchik disclosed if retreat is perceived as completely leaving Iraq this will not happen even after the Bush administration. Muravchik also noted if the Iraq administration demands the US army may pull out from Iraq however, this kind of a demand does not seem to be possible at this point. AEI authority emphasized the US is against the idea of independent Kurdistan and added it is normal that the CIA has secret detention centers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Of course not, not until all the oil's gone ...
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. No other possible explanation why we need 14 "permanent" military bases
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. and the biggest fortress, er, Embassy in the world!
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zann725 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. And because of these mega-bases,there will ALWAYS be Contractors there...
..even though actual "Military" numbers "appear" to come home. The two are separate. The Admin. is doing a slippery slight-of-hand here. First, they're primarily promisingto withdraw essentially the extra troops recently sent in for the Election. They are ONLY counting actual Military (NOT Contractors) who will truly be in charge of rebuilding, oil-profiteering and money-laundering, etc.

Whether they're Miliary or not, Contractors are STILL U.S. citizens dying for this misguided "cause." And they're still someone's husband, father, brother. Who's counting the dead Contractors? Deplorable as their missions may be, where do they show up in the Military Dead numbers?

And in terms of Contractors, we'll NEVER be out of the region.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogfacedboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Those mercenaries know EXACTLY what their getting into.
The US troops know as well, but I don't feel sorry for any merc who goes there, leaving behind loved ones that need them. What kind of sense of responsibility is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Not 'til all the oil has been harvested
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. Yeah, but who wants to talk about those permanent military installations?
On 23 March 2004 it was reported that "U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years.... The number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, between 105,000 and 110,000, is expected to remain unchanged through 2006.. the US plans to operate from former Iraqi bases in Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk and in areas near Nasiriyah, near Tikrit, near Fallujah and between Irbil and Kirkuk... enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul..."

By May 2005 the Washington Post reported that plans called for consolidating American troops in Iraq into four large air bases: Tallil in the south, Al Asad in the west, Balad in the center and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north. Eventually, US units would be concentrated at these four fortified strategic hubs, from which they could provide logistical support and emergency combat assistance. Each base would support a brigade combat team, along with aviation and other support personnel.

Initially referred to as "enduring bases" in 2004, these four bases were redesignated as "Contingency Operating Bases" in February 2005. The consolidation plan entails construction of long-lasting facilities, such as barracks and offices built of concrete blocks, rather than the metal trailers and buildings that are found at the larger US bases. The buildings are designed to withstand direct mortar strikes. Initial funding was provided in the $82 billion supplemental appropriations bill approved by Congress in May 2005.

More Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Where are they putting it all? I know all the oil company's are selling
like crazy, but where is it being stored? The only pipeline that is not routinely bombed is the one to Israel. Are they holding it for us? For themselves? I know Israel has neither oil nor water and they are desperate for both.

The US knows it will eventually be run out of Iraq so they need to get as much oil out as possible, where are they sending it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. Muravchik is in charge of US policy now?
He can read the tea leaves?
Aren't these the same twits that planned and orchestrated this mess?
What have they been correct about so far?
Anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. U.S. thirsty for oil. U.S. bomb Ay-rabs. Get Oil.
Edited on Sun Nov-27-05 10:17 AM by Old Crusoe
At a basic level, that about sums up the Bush administration's motivation to attack a sovereign nation.

You can't pump democracy into an SUV tank.


_ _ _
edit: sp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. These guys are just fooling themselves. Things are happening over
there. Bad things. Things we don't hear about except as rumors. And it's the height of arrogance and ignorance to think that we can control that country forever. Not like we control it now. But for years and years? No. Even less so then we do now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. I agree.
When we left VietNam, didn't we pack up our bags and leave for good?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barrett808 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Yes, we are losing. Outright. Iraqis won't allow a rump garrison.
We are leaving. In humiliation. All that's left is the spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SillyGoose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
5. "...the US will never retreat completely from Iraq."
"Muravchik disclosed if retreat is perceived as completely leaving Iraq this will not happen even after the Bush administration."

There it is in all its glory - a statement confirming a permanent US presence in Iraq.

:mad:

I wonder if someone will have the intestinal fortitude to ask little Scottie McClellan about this at the next WH briefing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
6. No retreat as long as the * administration continues.
Impeach the bastard now so we can bring the troops home now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. This man is a danger to democracy -
AEI is deciding policy now - not the American people. This man is about as unpatriotic as one can become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
8. let iraq decide whether the US stays or goes
these punks are so goofy it's scary...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catmandu57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
14. How many troops do we have in Vietnam?
Right, none, soon we'll be having a helicopter moment in Baghdad just like Saigon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. except Iraq has oil
lots of oil. I predict many more lives gone and billions spent trying to keep US hands on that oil before the Saigon repeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
19. These neocon PNAC clowns that believe in this manifest destiny
of the United States are in for a rude awakening.

They have so depleted America's resources in trying to control the oil fields of the middle east that we are no longer economically able to stand up to China.

China is willing and able to pay more for the oil and China's thirst for oil is increasing daily. The Iraqi's are businessmen and will simply change their little fake constitution to kick out the US and UK Oil Companies that control Iraq's oil distribution channels.

The US is doomed by this completely incompetent and puerile administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. Nope. Have to stay there to protect the OIL (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
22. Why does ANYONE think otherwise?
That we're going to withdraw is one of the most jaw-dropping bits of groupthink on both the right and the left. Even after every drop of oil's sucked out, we'll be there to buttress Israel unless the world is very, very different by then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-27-05 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. No surrender!

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC