House Passes Ban on Permanent Iraq Bases

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-09-27 07:13am

Wow. this is semi good news

WASHINGTON — Congress is on the verge of barring the construction of permanent bases for U.S. forces in Iraq, a move aimed at quelling concerns in the Arab world that American forces will remain in the war-torn country indefinitely.

The ban, which was inserted into the annual defense spending bill, won House approval Tuesday night when the chamber overwhelmingly approved the mammoth defense appropriations bill, 394-22.

The Senate is expected to vote on the $448-billion defense spending bill this week.

Pentagon and State Department officials have insisted that the U.S. military is not building permanent American bases in Iraq and that all facilities under construction will be handed over to the Iraqi government.

But the massive American bases in Iraq have long fueled speculation that the United States plans to maintain a military presence there, as it does in other parts of the Arab world.

LATIMES

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2006-09-27 07:51am

Thats good to know. Imagine trying to build and maitain a full base there. They would allways be under attack.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-09-27 09:08am

So instead of permanent bases with, potentially, proper facilities we can look forward to a lot of "non-permanent" bases?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-09-27 09:09am

Xon wrote:So instead of permanent bases with, potentially, proper facilities we can look forward to a lot of "non-permanent" bases?

and the worlds largest embassy.. which is bigger then the vatican..

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2006-09-27 09:54am

theski wrote:
Xon wrote:So instead of permanent bases with, potentially, proper facilities we can look forward to a lot of "non-permanent" bases?

and the worlds largest embassy.. which is bigger then the vatican..

Well, when we have to evacuate the embasy we want to make sure we have plenty of landing space to make sure were not cutting down trees in the parking lot for choppers.

Vaporous · Post by **Vaporous** » 2006-09-27 12:26pm

dragon wrote:Thats good to know. Imagine trying to build and maitain a full base there. They would allways be under attack.

We already built/are building permanent bases there, concrete walls and all, so I'm guessing there are some people who wished they had heard of this sooner.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2006-09-27 12:39pm

Vaporous wrote:
dragon wrote:Thats good to know. Imagine trying to build and maitain a full base there. They would allways be under attack.
We already built/are building permanent bases there, concrete walls and all, so I'm guessing there are some people who wished they had heard of this sooner.

We've built FOB's (Field Operating Bases) not the same as a full size normal base.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-27 12:43pm

I don't see what the problem is either way. If the Balkan situation is the template for future base operations, American soldiers would just hole up in their incredibly well-protected, lavishly built bases and rarely venture out anyway, so it wouldn't make much difference.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-09-27 01:34pm

Removing any permanant base from the middle east would go a long way to fight the "war on terror", I think. Owing to the fact the main rallying call is western interfearance in the islamic world.

I trust the US still has bases in Saudi Arabia, though?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-09-27 01:36pm

Lord Woodlouse wrote:Removing any permanant base from the middle east would go a long way to fight the "war on terror", I think. Owing to the fact the main rallying call is western interfearance in the islamic world.

I trust the US still has bases in Saudi Arabia, though?

Nope..

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-09-27 01:51pm

It doesn't really matter. Congress could ban permanent bases in Iraq and the Chimpenfuehrer will say the law doesn't apply to him with yet another of his signing statements. As usual.

Lord Woodlouse · Post by **Lord Woodlouse** » 2006-09-27 01:56pm

theski wrote:
Lord Woodlouse wrote:Removing any permanant base from the middle east would go a long way to fight the "war on terror", I think. Owing to the fact the main rallying call is western interfearance in the islamic world.

I trust the US still has bases in Saudi Arabia, though?

Nope..

Any in the entire Middle East?

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2006-09-27 02:00pm

Perhaps Turkey?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-09-27 02:08pm

Lord Woodlouse wrote:
theski wrote:
Lord Woodlouse wrote:Removing any permanant base from the middle east would go a long way to fight the "war on terror", I think. Owing to the fact the main rallying call is western interfearance in the islamic world.

I trust the US still has bases in Saudi Arabia, though?

Nope..
Any in the entire Middle East?

Qatar,Bahrain,UAE,

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2006-09-27 04:56pm

theski wrote:
Any in the entire Middle East?

Qatar,Bahrain,UAE,[/quote]

Not that last one.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-09-27 05:50pm

The bases aren't permanent; they're only there for the next hundred years!

Post by **Simplicius** » 2006-09-27 06:32pm

"Our temporary bases will remain in place until the Iraqis are able to secure their own country.

...What?"

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2006-09-27 08:49pm

Simplicius wrote:"Our temporary bases will remain in place until the Iraqis are able to secure their own country.

...What?"

Permanent.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2006-09-28 01:46am

Simplicius wrote:"Our temporary bases will remain in place until the Iraqis are able to secure their own country.

...What?"

Until there's another Islamic revolution and the Iraqis remove them.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-09-28 03:03am

Darth Wong wrote:I don't see what the problem is either way. If the Balkan situation is the template for future base operations, American soldiers would just hole up in their incredibly well-protected, lavishly built bases and rarely venture out anyway, so it wouldn't make much difference.

The differnece lies in much of the root of Saudi intransigence prior to GWI and a good deal of the ideological roots of radical teachings is that the US defiles sacred ground by occupying territory in Muslim countries. By sheer virtue of being in existence US bases promote the very tension they are suppossed to quell. Its an extreme taken on national sovreignty but those who object do have the point that US bases are, in effect, a continuing intrusion into the sovreignty of the nation in which they reside.