It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One Hundred And Six Permanent US Military Bases In Iraq

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Preserving your way of life by invading countries half-way around the World?


I also said self preservation, if invading someone half way around the world either directly or indirectly contributes or ensures that I am safer and better off here in the US, well, why not?


Bi-lateral agreements? LOL - given the US record of assination, interference in elections and terrorist attacks (not to mention invasion and punitive airstrikes) you can't seriously think bi-lateral agreements are entered into willingly.


Yes, I can, some of the oldest US bases oversees were entered very much willingly, and others, well, they're just war spoils. Also, most countries that host US bases either get direct protection, aid, or special privileges in return for their hospitality, so both sides are benefiting.


The US is the bully of the modern world willing to shed others' blood for political points, cheap oil, cheap raw materials - if you can't see that then you clearly don't see the true picture.


Well, you are entailed to you opinion of course, I cant say that everything the US has done has been pretty or for the better of things but you also shouldn’t be blind to our contributions.




posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Sigh... some people on this site remind me of the old Malay story of Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat.

Particularly this issue:


In fact, one of the hottest debates in Malay literature centers on the duel between Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat. Hang Tuah is a symbol of absolute loyalty to a ruler while Hang Jebat symbolizes truth and justice. Hence, the question of who is right.


No prizes to figure out who I root for. Anyway, all you Hang Tuah's, carry on



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
WP23 -



... if invading someone half way around the world either directly or indirectly contributes or ensures that I am safer and better off here in the US, well, why not?


I'm sure those Germans who were into the idea of lebensraum would have said the same thing.

And in answer to your question, why not? Because it's a war crime.

But here, of course, you are hoist with your own petard. Either the US is really invading other countries to bring them democracy (hah!) or the motive is to provide the US with access to raw materials. So the game is up: the raw materials are obviously what you care about.

But if you think it makes you safer, do you think you know better than CIA director Porter Goss?

The insurgency in Iraq continues to baffle the U.S. military and intelligence communities, and the U.S. occupation has become a potent recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, top U.S. national security officials told Congress yesterday.

"Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.


Here's something I found out about the 'special privileges' you get for having a US base in your country. A friend of mine used to be in Australian Military Intelligence. He really despised the US, btw, partly because he'd worked with the US military in joint exercises and had seen that gung-ho trigger-happy attitude shared by so many posters on this board up close.

But he told me something that made absolute sense. There's a base in Australia called Pine Gap. It's chock full of sensitive equipment. Well, all you Aussies out there better pray that you never get invaded, because if it looks like PG is going to fall into enemy hands, the US has nukes pointed right at it, and will use them. The same thing applies to Menwith Hill in the UK, and God knows how many other places round the world.

Do you think people would be happy in these countries if they knew?



posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

But here, of course, you are hoist with your own petard. Either the US is really invading other countries to bring them democracy (hah!) or the motive is to provide the US with access to raw materials. So the game is up: the raw materials are obviously what you care about.


Why can’t it be both? Like I said, both sides benefit.


Do you think people would be happy in these countries if they knew?


Those are probably (if real) just contingency plans for a worst case scenario. However who is going to invade the UK or Australia? The Martians?



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
"Both sides benefit"? The reason for so much intervention is that the corporations want to rip off the locals and, surprise, the locals don't want that. That's why the CIA got rid of Mossadegh, Qasim, Arbenz, Chavez (oops! that one didn't work out), Allende, Aristide (twice - and they called the op to put him back in as a puppet "operation restore democracy"
and that's just off the top of my head. Steven Kinzer, in his new book, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, studies several examples of this kind of coup:


You ask about the motivations, and that is one of the patterns that comes through when you look at these things all together. There’s really a three-stage motivation that I can see when I watch so many of the developments of these coups. The first thing that happens is that the regime in question starts bothering some American company. They start demanding that the company pay taxes or that it observe labor laws or environmental laws. Sometimes that company is nationalized or is somehow required to sell some of its land or its assets. So the first thing that happens is that an American or a foreign corporation is active in another country, and the government of that country starts to restrict it in some way or give it some trouble, restrict its ability to operate freely.

Then, the leaders of that company come to the political leadership of the United States to complain about the regime in that country. In the political process, in the White House, the motivation morphs a little bit. The U.S. government does not intervene directly to defend the rights of a company, but they transform the motivation from an economic one into a political or geo-strategic one. They make the assumption that any regime that would bother an American company or harass an American company must be anti-American, repressive, dictatorial, and probably the tool of some foreign power or interest that wants to undermine the United States. So the motivation transforms from an economic to a political one, although the actual basis for it never changes.

Then, it morphs one more time when the U.S. leaders have to explain the motivation for this operation to the American people. Then they do not use either the economic or the political motivation usually, but they portray these interventions as liberation operations, just a chance to free a poor oppressed nation from the brutality of a regime that we assume is a dictatorship, because what other kind of a regime would be bothering an American company?

The rest of his interview is available here.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
You're giving me an another man’s opinion to back up your own? Come on now, all you’re doing is advertising a book which I have no interest in buying.

And I know all about Hawaii and Cuba, what you have to know is that personally I don't see anything wrong with our involvement in Hawaii, Cuba or the Philippines for that matter. Tell me, which is better off today, Cuba or Hawaii? Again, both sides benefit.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Freedomrik
 


you're right. we are not leaving soon. we can want all we want,but it is a complicated wheel of FORTUNE. that will keep on repeat,repeat. it is happening all over the world not just iraq,the dominoe theory



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join