And to think do they hate us enough allready? so by placing a base there serves what purpose for the US?
I have been making the joke that Bush will forgo elections and do something under the pretext of protecting "our" intrests and keep himself in office.
the Sad thing is people I have said that comment to do not think that he will do it.
And God bless the National Guard and Reserves, those sorry bastards never know when they're coming home outside of "first half/last half" of a given year.
Don't I fucking know it.
Seriously, everything siliconenhanced said is pretty much spot-on. You can ignore it, or disregard it as "just one soldier" all you want. Fuck, people have been doing that since this shit started. If you want to listen to the minority (yes, minority) of soldiers who still think things are going well over there, have at it. But when it's all over, you won't be able to say nobody ever told you so.
Also the whole "building permanent bases" thing is nothing new. Fuck, I heard quasi-reliable rumors that the airbase we were operating out of up by Kirkuk was actually a candidate for a permanent base, and the amount of construction going on there seemed to lend support to it. I think permanent bases have been part of the plan since before the first tanks crossed the border.
EDIT: Oh, and for fun storytime...I remember when the outgoing unit before us decided to stage a major operation in a local village, the sole intent of which seemed to be to give everybody one last chance to get their CIB, including every desk jockey who had hardly left the FOB all year. Good times. What the fuck is with infantry commanders putting people's lives at risk (on both sides) just to get people awards? Then there was the incoming unit, whose battalion commander's intent, as stated to us, was to "kill as many of the little bastards in the first week as possible without catching CNN's attention, so that hopefully they won't bother us for the rest of the year."
Didn't work.
Luckily being National Guard we weren't quite as gung-ho (and/or stupid) as all that...we did our job and counted down until we could go home. Not really "counted down" so much, since as was mentioned we didn't even have a rough date (+/- two weeks) until maybe a couple months out.
Also the whole "building permanent bases" thing is nothing new. Fuck, I heard quasi-reliable rumors that the airbase we were operating out of up by Kirkuk was actually a candidate for a permanent base, and the amount of construction going on there seemed to lend support to it. I think permanent bases have been part of the plan since before the first tanks crossed the border.
I remember a fairly big BBC story last year about how much has gone into some of the bases.
Isn't the fact that we had a permenant base in Saudi Arabia one of the main reasons this shit started in the first place?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
My "It Will Never Happen Here" prediction for 2008 is that King Bush will orchestrate some event where he can announce martial law in the US and will need to postpone the presidential elections for proper security measures.
honestly i hope it happens so we can take the government back.
He doesn't really seem to enjoy being preznit. My feeling is that he's eager to wash his hands of it.
Rulers who talk to god almighty for political advice don't feel a need to be happy. It's their divine destiny after all to be King forever their happiness is with their nightly chat-em-ups with the Creator of All Things.
I'm gonna be looking for a lot of "Oh shit, George Lucas is a prophet" comments if Bush becomes Emperor.
When a base gets a Baskin Robins, it's probably there for the long hall. Hell, Osan has a Chilli's.
Qatar had a little mini-Chili's. Pretty decent, though. I imagine that had more to do with it's use as an R&R destination for soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, but it's still a pretty permanent installation.
I took it as a bad sign when Kirkuk got a Pizza Hut that served full-sized pizzas, as well as a coffee shop. Still trailer-based, but scary nonetheless. That, and when the base moved to centralized power generation for the entire FOB.
I had hoped that the lack of discernable progress was going to eventually clue the idiot in tach.
Him talking about establishing permanet bases in iraq shows that he's completely out of touch with reality.
The US has permanent bases all over the place; did you ever really, honestly believe that there wasn't going to be one established in Iraq, when the stated agenda of the Bush regime is to spread western-flavour democracy throughout the middle east? I think Iraq has always been regarded as a kind of beachhead for that effort.
I know it's a little irrational, but the longer this thing goes on, the more my British Colonialism sense starts twitching. White man's burden, and all that.
I'm gonna be looking for a lot of "Oh shit, George Lucas is a prophet" comments if Bush becomes Emperor.
When a base gets a Baskin Robins, it's probably there for the long hall. Hell, Osan has a Chilli's.
Qatar had a little mini-Chili's. Pretty decent, though. I imagine that had more to do with it's use as an R&R destination for soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, but it's still a pretty permanent installation.
I took it as a bad sign when Kirkuk got a Pizza Hut that served full-sized pizzas, as well as a coffee shop. Still trailer-based, but scary nonetheless. That, and when the base moved to centralized power generation for the entire FOB.
One of them even has a Dunkin Donuts. That has to be code for permanent.
One of them even has a Dunkin Donuts. That has to be code for permanent.
As soon as there's a Starbuck's on a FOB there, I'd say that's the clincher. I remember there was one at Doha (in Kuwait, for those that don't know) and I believe there was one in Qatar, but everywhere in Iraq just had that Green Beans or whatever the fuck it was called.
I thought the Arabs invented coffee. Why the fuck would you go to Starbucks in Iraq?
They're less likely to kill you for being an infidel.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking. Nothing sucks worse than getting blowed up by a roadside bomb on your way to the local Arab coffee shop.
As for just letting them run the shop on the FOB, I'm not sure I'd trust any food products they bring in. I ate local food a few times...I eventually stopped when I almost ended up shitting out a lung. Seriously, I thought I was going to die. Literally.
Actually, I still ate some local food after that...but only when our interpreter brought food cooked by his wife. Damn, could that woman make some tasty stuff.
So, what similarities did they see between the politics of Iraq and South Korea that would make a permanent base possible? And why are they so fucking stupid?
So, what similarities did they see between the politics of Iraq and South Korea that would make a permanent base possible? And why are they so fucking stupid?
I can point out differences, but not similarities. Sorry
So, what similarities did they see between the politics of Iraq and South Korea that would make a permanent base possible? And why are they so fucking stupid?
Because if one soldier thinks its worth being over there, then obviously everything is hunky dory.
Re: Crazy Stuff Over There
I remember when I was living in the ass end of nowhere in Afghanistan, someone thought it would be a good idea to send Russian massueses to the base as a Morale Welfare Recreation project (Hereon referred to as MWR) and our Colonel flipped his fucking lid, famously quoting "We're here to fight a fucking war, keep that shit in Big PX land." Not that I disagree with his sentiments - soldiers would be doing stupid shit like asking for happy endings left and right and it would be a big mess.
To be fair to Qatar, it was an R&R spot, but the fact that they gave out War Zone pay for it was salt in a fucking wound. It also had a pool, 24 hour gym, Orange Julius, two or three bars, day trips for fishing/dune buggies/mall shopping/snorkeling and probably more stuff than I can remember. Last I remember, it was also Centcom HQ, so you had colonels and generals all over the damn place.
From all reports, there are two Baghdads for the US. One is the kind I described above, where you're sleeping in an air conditioned room by yourself and drinking beers at night when you're done with work, and the other is when you're either living in an Iraqi hovel w/ a platoon, that you've fortified and sweating balls 24/7, or living 10 men to a tent, sweating balls 24/7.
There aren't a lot of comparisons to SK, so really the only reason to invoke SK is as its image as a 'won' war, with US troops keeping the peace against barbarians at the gates... or some such.
Building Military bases in Iraq is closer to the forts in the American West, in the Indian wars of the 19th century (though you can go further back to throughout the colonization period). You could make comparisons to Medieval castles, but if I wanted a historical example I'd probably choose the Roman forts.
The difference of course with those wars, was that the Indian wars were closer to genocide in every sense of the term, the enemy fought was Neolithic versus an industrialized society (though technically one could say we have a similar technical edge against Arabs), and the natives were already weakened significantly.
Once again reminding myself that there isn't a 21st century solution to this war on terror.
So, what similarities did they see between the politics of Iraq and South Korea that would make a permanent base possible? And why are they so fucking stupid?
I can point out differences, but not similarities. Sorry
There are no similarities at all. The troops stationed in Korea have been there so long to keep the North Koreans in check. It is one identifiable force matching another in a sometimes shaky armistice. While in Iraq the American Military along with the coalition forces are the only readily identifiable forces in Iraq who are caught in a civil war between a series of ideologically different insurgent groups who don't represent the military of a country. This whole keep the troops in Iraq thing is just Bush completely going nuts. I mean you know that Bush is utterly fucking insane when it was reported that he beat his chest three times while chanting "I am the president" in front of his friends then stating that he was setting up Iraq so that the next president will not be able to withdraw from "America's destiny".
My "It Will Never Happen Here" prediction for 2008 is that King Bush will orchestrate some event where he can announce martial law in the US and will need to postpone the presidential elections for proper security measures.
honestly i hope it happens so we can take the government back.
Part of me thinks this is silly and part of me is terrified because I think it's possible.
But I don't think they'd do it without having the military back on American soil to deal with rebellion.
Personally I'm more worried about the NEXT President. Will they have the integrity to reverse the obscene power-grab Bush and Co. spearheaded? I'm terrified that a competent set of liars will end up with this kind of power.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
So, what similarities did they see between the politics of Iraq and South Korea that would make a permanent base possible? And why are they so fucking stupid?
I can point out differences, but not similarities. Sorry
There are no similarities at all. The troops stationed in Korea have been there so long to keep the North Koreans in check. It is one identifiable force matching another in a sometimes shaky armistice. While in Iraq the American Military along with the coalition forces are the only readily identifiable forces in Iraq who are caught in a civil war between a series of ideologically different insurgent groups who don't represent the military of a country. This whole keep the troops in Iraq thing is just Bush completely going nuts. I mean you know that Bush is utterly fucking insane when it was reported that he beat his chest three times while chanting "I am the president" in front of his friends then stating that he was setting up Iraq so that the next president will not be able to withdraw from "America's destiny".
I can think of a good reason to have a base or two in Iraq, but it has nothing to do with Korea. You have the troops there to make sure that the side(s) you really really don't like in a civil war don't win and remain weakened. So if Al Qaeda is building up some steam you periodically blow them up regardless of everything else being chaos. Of course they would be playing a holed up reactive role in such a manner, as opposed to trying to secure the country otherwise.
The bases in Korea mostly serve as a tripwire if the North decided to invade. They would hit our troops (who would be unable to stop the invasion anyways), which would give us clear and immediate justification to declare war on North Korea. Contrast this with Israel and how the US supports them.
My "It Will Never Happen Here" prediction for 2008 is that King Bush will orchestrate some event where he can announce martial law in the US and will need to postpone the presidential elections for proper security measures.
honestly i hope it happens so we can take the government back.
Part of me thinks this is silly and part of me is terrified because I think it's possible.
But I don't think they'd do it without having the military back on American soil to deal with rebellion.
Personally I'm more worried about the NEXT President. Will they have the integrity to reverse the obscene power-grab Bush and Co. spearheaded? I'm terrified that a competent set of liars will end up with this kind of power.
its unlikely but i do think its possible with him. His family doesnt want to relinquish power and i think its safe to say Georgie boy has ruined his brother's chances at a presidency.
they wont have the integrity. its obvious in that the dems pussed out on getting the troops out of iraq and the gop pussing out on the border issue. they are the same fucking party now and they seem to have no intention on changing or listening to the voices of their voters unless we shoot them in the face with small arms.
Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?
I'm sorry if it's already been discussed, but this is some seriously unsettling shit.
In a 2005 debate with Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel, Yoo argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering that a young child of a suspect in custody be tortured, even by crushing the child's testicles
I seriously hope this is some crazy conspiracy theroy site; if not, fuck beans thats some shit up fucked.D:
conspiracy theroy, im a republican im a democrat or not we seriously need to get this fucker out of office asap before he really causes damage. i voted for the son of a bitch twice and i feel like i've been put in a alternate universe featuring the 7th dimension of hell where everything is my fault.
we gotta get him out before i'm to somewhat to blame. please.
conspiracy theroy, im a republican im a democrat or not we seriously need to get this fucker out of office asap before he really causes damage. i voted for the son of a bitch twice and i feel like i've been put in a alternate universe featuring the 7th dimension of hell where everything is my fault.
we gotta get him out before i'm to somewhat to blame. please.
I don't suppose you feel like sharing why you voted for him in 2004?
conspiracy theroy, im a republican im a democrat or not we seriously need to get this fucker out of office asap before he really causes damage. i voted for the son of a bitch twice and i feel like i've been put in a alternate universe featuring the 7th dimension of hell where everything is my fault.
we gotta get him out before i'm to somewhat to blame. please.
I don't suppose you feel like sharing why you voted for him in 2004?
not really. immaturity. southern peer pressure. his charasmatic sneer.
Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?
I'm sorry if it's already been discussed, but this is some seriously unsettling shit.
So he will declare himself emperor, create the new Galactic Empire and rule the galaxy with an iron fist! This seems familiar some how. Help us Obi Wan Obama, you're our only hope.
So, what similarities did they see between the politics of Iraq and South Korea that would make a permanent base possible? And why are they so fucking stupid?
Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?
I'm sorry if it's already been discussed, but this is some seriously unsettling shit.
So he will declare himself emperor, create the new Galactic Empire and rule the galaxy with an iron fist! This seems familiar some how. Help us Obi Wan Obama, you're our only hope.
There are enough weapons floating around and enough militias to make this an impossibility.
Malkor on
0
Options
Triple BBastard of the NorthMARegistered Userregular
Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?
I'm sorry if it's already been discussed, but this is some seriously unsettling shit.
So he will declare himself emperor, create the new Galactic Empire and rule the galaxy with an iron fist! This seems familiar some how. Help us Obi Wan Obama, you're our only hope.
Playing the role of Anakin Skywalker will be John McCain.
There are enough weapons floating around and enough militias to make this an impossibility.
Not...quite. There are several problems with the "armed insurrection makes America dictatorship-proof" idea.
The first is just getting people to recognize what has happened. How many of Bush's remaining supporters would jump ship if, after some major terrorist incident, would immediately end their support of his administration and policies? How many people would listen to the arguments from pundits and FOX News and the Bush administration that it would all be a temporary measure in a crisis to preserve stability of governance? Given the misinformation going around these days, I imagine there would be a "debate" on whether or not Bush being office past January 20th, 2009 was legal or illegal, moral or immoral, Hitlerlike or not Hitlerlike. I can just see Bill O'Reilly talking about how it is our duty to rally behind the President in the time of a national crisis.
The second is getting people to care. You'd have protests, but would you have riots? You'd have riots- but would they be sustained? Would there be strikes? Would states secede from the Union? Would people actually rise up? Or would apathy and the fact that the economy is still good relax people? Would they say, "Oh, I'm sure it is temporary..."
The third is...assembling and organizing this 2nd American revolution. Are your predominantly ultra-conservative militia guys really going to join forces with liberals against the Bush administration? That's assuming ultra-conservative militia organizations even recognize or care that Bush has taken power- they might support such a move. Particularly religious conservatives, if Bush plays (and he would) the faith card.
Fourth, it's kind of a myth that there are large militia groups in the US capable of facing the Federal government. A lot of militia groups have disbanded or disintegrated after the 90s conspiracy/apocalypse/Y2K zeitgeist faded after 9/11, those that remain are a lot smaller than they were, and they were never terribly big to begin with. Surely nothing that could stand up to the Army in open combat- and how easily would a dictatorial Bush administration be able to paint an insurgency as terrorists if they were forced to use guerrilla tactics? They have no artillery, they have no armor, no aircraft, no logistic support chain, no command and control.
You'd have to, for a viable revolution to work, have elements of the army, state national guards and states themselves go against the Federal Government- and how likely is it that Arnold would declare the California Free State and sell Los Angeles to the Japanese? (If anyone catches that reference, I'll give you a shiny, albeit imaginary, cookie).
Fifth, small arms ownership is one thing, but...hunting rifles and handguns against the US Military? Guerrilla warfare, sure, an insurgency, sure, but such a conflict would be long, bloody and likely not even end in Bush's overthrow.
Sixth, an American insurgency against Darth Bush would be the last option taken. More likely, given the tradition of civilian rule, rule of law, and the fact that everyone in government swears their oath to the Constitution and not the President, you'd have someone stepping in to stop him. He'd have to disband Congress to stop them from impeaching the fuck out of him- which would make him a traitor, so he'd have to ensure that all of the Secret Service was loyal, that he had loyal Army units ready to guard Washington DC...and so on. Bush may have appointed people mostly based on loyalty, but 95% of the government is composed of non-elected, non-appointed people- regular bureaucrats, many of whom have been there for decades. There are built-in checks and balances to the system that have been eroded by the gradual accumulation of executive power over the last 50 years but they have not been erased. I'd be more worried about private militias managed by the Religious Right, hand-picked army units and national guard troops from Red states being "in the US" at just the right time while most of the rest of the military was in Iraq...
That all being said, the idea of Bush taking power in a coup isn't plausible. It's just not that realistic, so the whole argument is moot anyway. But still, the idea that "militia groups" would step in to save Freedom! and Democracy! is laughable. Fifty guys in store-bought camouflage are not going to storm the White House.
As for the recent Presidential directive, it is pretty worrisome, but I find most people exaggerate what it means. The directive puts the President in charge of directing "continuity of constitutional governance" in the event of a national emergency. He's supposed to cooperate with the Judicial branch in doing so. Still, it is both
A. Extremely weird
B. Extremely suspicious
and
C. Extremely unnecessary
For him to issue this directive now. Continuity-of-governance policies have been in place since the Cold War started, and there are already built-in procedures for how to keep the Supreme Court, Congress, etc, alive and active during a national emergency, even one as massive as a global thermonuclear war. So why issue a new policy, one that assigns a lot more power to the Executive branch than even the Cold War-era policies did, at a time when the threat is actually far less- a single terrorist nuke might qualify as 'national emergency', but it doesn't hold a candle to the 2,000 Soviet city busters that'd come screaming in out of the stratosphere circa 1986.
It's a strange directive. It's all so vague it's hard to make the argument now that it could be misused, because anyone inclined to defend Bush could always use the "least evil" interpretation of any of its rules, even though anything so vague is always open to misuse anyway. It does seem written to allow a President to grab significant amounts of additional power in the event of an arbitrary and almost meaninglessly defined "national emergency", but there does not seem to be a compelling reason why he would issue such a directive.
Still, the language isn't as open-ended as people say. Just open ended enough to be trouble.
You'd have to, for a viable revolution to work, have elements of the army, state national guards and states themselves go against the Federal Government- and how likely is it that Arnold would declare the California Free State and sell Los Angeles to the Japanese? (If anyone catches that reference, I'll give you a shiny, albeit imaginary, cookie)
You'd have to, for a viable revolution to work, have elements of the army, state national guards and states themselves go against the Federal Government- and how likely is it that Arnold would declare the California Free State and sell Los Angeles to the Japanese? (If anyone catches that reference, I'll give you a shiny, albeit imaginary, cookie)
Shadowrun!
I think I might have been wrong, though. Wasn't it San Francisco that got taken by the Japanese?
Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, could Bush and Cheney use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration?
I'm sorry if it's already been discussed, but this is some seriously unsettling shit.
So he will declare himself emperor, create the new Galactic Empire and rule the galaxy with an iron fist! This seems familiar some how. Help us Obi Wan Obama, you're our only hope.
Playing the role of Anakin Skywalker will be John McCain.
But he needs to appeal to his base.
Because that's how you win elections. By shitting on your reputation as a political moderate.
Wait, this entire "Bush taking power" thing would require Bush to be competent.
That, and quite frankly I don't think that he has the balls to take power, and if he gets eliminated for Cheney then the whole plan is screwed.
The conspiracy thread is that way ->. Sigh, 7 years of "Bushitler" and "they're taking our freedoms!" and you get nuts like this. You guys are as bad as the survivalists who cropped up after Waco. "The governments coming for our guns and our religions!"
There are legitimate concerns about the expansion of the executive branch under the Bush administration, but none of them have to do with the establishment of a Bush monarchy. By playing into such base fears and unfounded acquisitions you're undermining legitimate criticisms of the administration.
The conspiracy thread is that way ->. Sigh, 7 years of "Bushitler" and "they're taking our freedoms!" and you get nuts like this. You guys are as bad as the survivalists who cropped up after Waco. "The governments coming for our guns and our religions!"
There are legitimate concerns about the expansion of the executive branch under the Bush administration, but none of them have to do with the establishment of a Bush monarchy. By playing into such base fears and unfounded acquisitions you're undermining legitimate criticisms of the administration.
Cough*ridersCough*
Picardathon on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited June 2007
Well we have a number of military and ex-military people here. Let's ask them: if some big disaster popped up around the end of Bush's term in office, and so he indefinitely extended his term of presidency, what percentage of the military would get behind him? Do you think that they'd be willing to fire on "domestic insurgents" or whatever?
Posts
I have been making the joke that Bush will forgo elections and do something under the pretext of protecting "our" intrests and keep himself in office.
the Sad thing is people I have said that comment to do not think that he will do it.
Don't I fucking know it.
Seriously, everything siliconenhanced said is pretty much spot-on. You can ignore it, or disregard it as "just one soldier" all you want. Fuck, people have been doing that since this shit started. If you want to listen to the minority (yes, minority) of soldiers who still think things are going well over there, have at it. But when it's all over, you won't be able to say nobody ever told you so.
Also the whole "building permanent bases" thing is nothing new. Fuck, I heard quasi-reliable rumors that the airbase we were operating out of up by Kirkuk was actually a candidate for a permanent base, and the amount of construction going on there seemed to lend support to it. I think permanent bases have been part of the plan since before the first tanks crossed the border.
EDIT: Oh, and for fun storytime...I remember when the outgoing unit before us decided to stage a major operation in a local village, the sole intent of which seemed to be to give everybody one last chance to get their CIB, including every desk jockey who had hardly left the FOB all year. Good times. What the fuck is with infantry commanders putting people's lives at risk (on both sides) just to get people awards? Then there was the incoming unit, whose battalion commander's intent, as stated to us, was to "kill as many of the little bastards in the first week as possible without catching CNN's attention, so that hopefully they won't bother us for the rest of the year."
Luckily being National Guard we weren't quite as gung-ho (and/or stupid) as all that...we did our job and counted down until we could go home. Not really "counted down" so much, since as was mentioned we didn't even have a rough date (+/- two weeks) until maybe a couple months out.
Iraq bases spur questions over US plans
While looking for it I found stories from, like you said, March 2003.
Heh, here's the base in the article on Google Maps if anyone's interested.
EDIT: sorry, that was Balad, this is Al-Asad.
Rulers who talk to god almighty for political advice don't feel a need to be happy. It's their divine destiny after all to be King forever their happiness is with their nightly chat-em-ups with the Creator of All Things.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
When a base gets a Baskin Robins, it's probably there for the long hall. Hell, Osan has a Chilli's.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Qatar had a little mini-Chili's. Pretty decent, though. I imagine that had more to do with it's use as an R&R destination for soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, but it's still a pretty permanent installation.
I took it as a bad sign when Kirkuk got a Pizza Hut that served full-sized pizzas, as well as a coffee shop. Still trailer-based, but scary nonetheless. That, and when the base moved to centralized power generation for the entire FOB.
The US has permanent bases all over the place; did you ever really, honestly believe that there wasn't going to be one established in Iraq, when the stated agenda of the Bush regime is to spread western-flavour democracy throughout the middle east? I think Iraq has always been regarded as a kind of beachhead for that effort.
I know it's a little irrational, but the longer this thing goes on, the more my British Colonialism sense starts twitching. White man's burden, and all that.
One of them even has a Dunkin Donuts. That has to be code for permanent.
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
As soon as there's a Starbuck's on a FOB there, I'd say that's the clincher. I remember there was one at Doha (in Kuwait, for those that don't know) and I believe there was one in Qatar, but everywhere in Iraq just had that Green Beans or whatever the fuck it was called.
That doesn't mean it's good coffee to someone used to Starbucks style stuff. :P
As for just letting them run the shop on the FOB, I'm not sure I'd trust any food products they bring in. I ate local food a few times...I eventually stopped when I almost ended up shitting out a lung. Seriously, I thought I was going to die. Literally.
Actually, I still ate some local food after that...but only when our interpreter brought food cooked by his wife. Damn, could that woman make some tasty stuff.
I can point out differences, but not similarities. Sorry
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
Because if one soldier thinks its worth being over there, then obviously everything is hunky dory.
Re: Crazy Stuff Over There
I remember when I was living in the ass end of nowhere in Afghanistan, someone thought it would be a good idea to send Russian massueses to the base as a Morale Welfare Recreation project (Hereon referred to as MWR) and our Colonel flipped his fucking lid, famously quoting "We're here to fight a fucking war, keep that shit in Big PX land." Not that I disagree with his sentiments - soldiers would be doing stupid shit like asking for happy endings left and right and it would be a big mess.
To be fair to Qatar, it was an R&R spot, but the fact that they gave out War Zone pay for it was salt in a fucking wound. It also had a pool, 24 hour gym, Orange Julius, two or three bars, day trips for fishing/dune buggies/mall shopping/snorkeling and probably more stuff than I can remember. Last I remember, it was also Centcom HQ, so you had colonels and generals all over the damn place.
From all reports, there are two Baghdads for the US. One is the kind I described above, where you're sleeping in an air conditioned room by yourself and drinking beers at night when you're done with work, and the other is when you're either living in an Iraqi hovel w/ a platoon, that you've fortified and sweating balls 24/7, or living 10 men to a tent, sweating balls 24/7.
Building Military bases in Iraq is closer to the forts in the American West, in the Indian wars of the 19th century (though you can go further back to throughout the colonization period). You could make comparisons to Medieval castles, but if I wanted a historical example I'd probably choose the Roman forts.
The difference of course with those wars, was that the Indian wars were closer to genocide in every sense of the term, the enemy fought was Neolithic versus an industrialized society (though technically one could say we have a similar technical edge against Arabs), and the natives were already weakened significantly.
Once again reminding myself that there isn't a 21st century solution to this war on terror.
There are no similarities at all. The troops stationed in Korea have been there so long to keep the North Koreans in check. It is one identifiable force matching another in a sometimes shaky armistice. While in Iraq the American Military along with the coalition forces are the only readily identifiable forces in Iraq who are caught in a civil war between a series of ideologically different insurgent groups who don't represent the military of a country. This whole keep the troops in Iraq thing is just Bush completely going nuts. I mean you know that Bush is utterly fucking insane when it was reported that he beat his chest three times while chanting "I am the president" in front of his friends then stating that he was setting up Iraq so that the next president will not be able to withdraw from "America's destiny".
And for those who don't believe me on the last bit: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/31/bush-thumping-his-chest-i-am-the-president/
Also the plans for the combine citadel have been leaked, oops: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070531/pl_afp/iraqusembassyunrest
Part of me thinks this is silly and part of me is terrified because I think it's possible.
But I don't think they'd do it without having the military back on American soil to deal with rebellion.
Personally I'm more worried about the NEXT President. Will they have the integrity to reverse the obscene power-grab Bush and Co. spearheaded? I'm terrified that a competent set of liars will end up with this kind of power.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I can think of a good reason to have a base or two in Iraq, but it has nothing to do with Korea. You have the troops there to make sure that the side(s) you really really don't like in a civil war don't win and remain weakened. So if Al Qaeda is building up some steam you periodically blow them up regardless of everything else being chaos. Of course they would be playing a holed up reactive role in such a manner, as opposed to trying to secure the country otherwise.
The bases in Korea mostly serve as a tripwire if the North decided to invade. They would hit our troops (who would be unable to stop the invasion anyways), which would give us clear and immediate justification to declare war on North Korea. Contrast this with Israel and how the US supports them.
its unlikely but i do think its possible with him. His family doesnt want to relinquish power and i think its safe to say Georgie boy has ruined his brother's chances at a presidency.
they wont have the integrity. its obvious in that the dems pussed out on getting the troops out of iraq and the gop pussing out on the border issue. they are the same fucking party now and they seem to have no intention on changing or listening to the voices of their voters unless we shoot them in the face with small arms.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
"We have the bomb, they don't. We'll do what we want."
I'm sorry if it's already been discussed, but this is some seriously unsettling shit.
I seriously hope this is some crazy conspiracy theroy site; if not, fuck beans thats some shit up fucked.D:
3DS: 1521-4165-5907
PS3: KayleSolo
Live: Kayle Solo
WiiU: KayleSolo
we gotta get him out before i'm to somewhat to blame. please.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
I don't suppose you feel like sharing why you voted for him in 2004?
not really. immaturity. southern peer pressure. his charasmatic sneer.
i just got caught up in this whole mess OKAY??!?!
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
So he will declare himself emperor, create the new Galactic Empire and rule the galaxy with an iron fist! This seems familiar some how. Help us Obi Wan Obama, you're our only hope.
Playing the role of Anakin Skywalker will be John McCain.
Not...quite. There are several problems with the "armed insurrection makes America dictatorship-proof" idea.
The first is just getting people to recognize what has happened. How many of Bush's remaining supporters would jump ship if, after some major terrorist incident, would immediately end their support of his administration and policies? How many people would listen to the arguments from pundits and FOX News and the Bush administration that it would all be a temporary measure in a crisis to preserve stability of governance? Given the misinformation going around these days, I imagine there would be a "debate" on whether or not Bush being office past January 20th, 2009 was legal or illegal, moral or immoral, Hitlerlike or not Hitlerlike. I can just see Bill O'Reilly talking about how it is our duty to rally behind the President in the time of a national crisis.
The second is getting people to care. You'd have protests, but would you have riots? You'd have riots- but would they be sustained? Would there be strikes? Would states secede from the Union? Would people actually rise up? Or would apathy and the fact that the economy is still good relax people? Would they say, "Oh, I'm sure it is temporary..."
The third is...assembling and organizing this 2nd American revolution. Are your predominantly ultra-conservative militia guys really going to join forces with liberals against the Bush administration? That's assuming ultra-conservative militia organizations even recognize or care that Bush has taken power- they might support such a move. Particularly religious conservatives, if Bush plays (and he would) the faith card.
Fourth, it's kind of a myth that there are large militia groups in the US capable of facing the Federal government. A lot of militia groups have disbanded or disintegrated after the 90s conspiracy/apocalypse/Y2K zeitgeist faded after 9/11, those that remain are a lot smaller than they were, and they were never terribly big to begin with. Surely nothing that could stand up to the Army in open combat- and how easily would a dictatorial Bush administration be able to paint an insurgency as terrorists if they were forced to use guerrilla tactics? They have no artillery, they have no armor, no aircraft, no logistic support chain, no command and control.
You'd have to, for a viable revolution to work, have elements of the army, state national guards and states themselves go against the Federal Government- and how likely is it that Arnold would declare the California Free State and sell Los Angeles to the Japanese? (If anyone catches that reference, I'll give you a shiny, albeit imaginary, cookie).
Fifth, small arms ownership is one thing, but...hunting rifles and handguns against the US Military? Guerrilla warfare, sure, an insurgency, sure, but such a conflict would be long, bloody and likely not even end in Bush's overthrow.
Sixth, an American insurgency against Darth Bush would be the last option taken. More likely, given the tradition of civilian rule, rule of law, and the fact that everyone in government swears their oath to the Constitution and not the President, you'd have someone stepping in to stop him. He'd have to disband Congress to stop them from impeaching the fuck out of him- which would make him a traitor, so he'd have to ensure that all of the Secret Service was loyal, that he had loyal Army units ready to guard Washington DC...and so on. Bush may have appointed people mostly based on loyalty, but 95% of the government is composed of non-elected, non-appointed people- regular bureaucrats, many of whom have been there for decades. There are built-in checks and balances to the system that have been eroded by the gradual accumulation of executive power over the last 50 years but they have not been erased. I'd be more worried about private militias managed by the Religious Right, hand-picked army units and national guard troops from Red states being "in the US" at just the right time while most of the rest of the military was in Iraq...
That all being said, the idea of Bush taking power in a coup isn't plausible. It's just not that realistic, so the whole argument is moot anyway. But still, the idea that "militia groups" would step in to save Freedom! and Democracy! is laughable. Fifty guys in store-bought camouflage are not going to storm the White House.
As for the recent Presidential directive, it is pretty worrisome, but I find most people exaggerate what it means. The directive puts the President in charge of directing "continuity of constitutional governance" in the event of a national emergency. He's supposed to cooperate with the Judicial branch in doing so. Still, it is both
A. Extremely weird
B. Extremely suspicious
and
C. Extremely unnecessary
For him to issue this directive now. Continuity-of-governance policies have been in place since the Cold War started, and there are already built-in procedures for how to keep the Supreme Court, Congress, etc, alive and active during a national emergency, even one as massive as a global thermonuclear war. So why issue a new policy, one that assigns a lot more power to the Executive branch than even the Cold War-era policies did, at a time when the threat is actually far less- a single terrorist nuke might qualify as 'national emergency', but it doesn't hold a candle to the 2,000 Soviet city busters that'd come screaming in out of the stratosphere circa 1986.
It's a strange directive. It's all so vague it's hard to make the argument now that it could be misused, because anyone inclined to defend Bush could always use the "least evil" interpretation of any of its rules, even though anything so vague is always open to misuse anyway. It does seem written to allow a President to grab significant amounts of additional power in the event of an arbitrary and almost meaninglessly defined "national emergency", but there does not seem to be a compelling reason why he would issue such a directive.
Still, the language isn't as open-ended as people say. Just open ended enough to be trouble.
I think I might have been wrong, though. Wasn't it San Francisco that got taken by the Japanese?
But he needs to appeal to his base.
Because that's how you win elections. By shitting on your reputation as a political moderate.
That, and quite frankly I don't think that he has the balls to take power, and if he gets eliminated for Cheney then the whole plan is screwed.
There are legitimate concerns about the expansion of the executive branch under the Bush administration, but none of them have to do with the establishment of a Bush monarchy. By playing into such base fears and unfounded acquisitions you're undermining legitimate criticisms of the administration.