I eat my own boogers http://www.ncaaedge.info [url=http://www.ncaaedge.info]AWESOME place to go[/url] http://ncaaedge.info

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

regulations banking

As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Armed Forces found themselves in the position of perhaps having to confront a foreign power (the jurisdiction of all U.S. law enforcement being contained only within the borders of the U.S., but the jurisdiction of the U.S. Armed Forces, or any nation’s military in matters pertaining to National Security and Justice, that jurisdiction is global)…

Again, the U.S. Armed Forces finding themselves in the position of perhaps having to confront a foreign power, the Bush Administration strangely made that foreign power out to be Iraq, when common sense (and the Joint Congressional Inquiry) made it out to be Saudi Arabia.

And the explanation for this strange difference of opinion is controversial for sure, and involves oil, politics, arms, ‘pre-war intelligence’, the Carlyle Group, somebody’s “good friends”…

…the list is near endless, and controversial indeed.

But as to the Permanent presence of the U.S. Military in the gulf region: It’s an absolute necessity.

Should this country be struck again by terrorists (of the same nationality and motivation as that of the 9-11 attackers), then our U.S. Armed Forces would find themselves again in the position of perhaps having to confront a foreign power; and the notion that they would have to saddle up and take the months (and nearly a year) to establish even a presence in that gulf region (as opposed to an actual response, which the quicker would be the better; and lightning quick the best), the idea of all that troop movement and the time it would take, is against National Security, and against Justice were it called for, were an attack to happen.

And call it whatever you like, but I say it here: Not only has all the funding and all the people and all the motivation for these terrorists attacks come from one particular region in the world, but the continued threat of those attacks also continue to come from that one particular region in the world.

The gulf region.

And so to summarize: The idea that the U.S. Military should completely leave the gulf region, and that they should maintain no permanent presence there, is certainly against the idea of a National Security response to, and Justice for, any terrorist attacks that might happen in the future, as directed and financed by the people of the gulf region (which I point out again, is a response and a Justice that can not suffer the time and motion to move so many so far, and still be effective; and again I say, to a place that was not at all sensible that it should be Iraq, when Saudi Arabia was not only the foreign power for our U.S. Armed Forces to confront then, but will be for any future attack that may happen).

AND SO I POST FOR A PERMANENT MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE GULF REGION, AS CLOSE TO SAUDI ARABIA AS IS POSSIBLE

For those who caught the Reid radio hit on WTPS Miami this morning, here are links to the topics we talked about. ……

Not only about the “enduring” bases the trolls denied over and over and again, but also about the ultimate reason for the invasion of Iraq. Take a look at this tidbit:

“Ultimately it comes down to the free flow of goods and resources on which the prosperity of our own nation and everybody else in the world depend,” [Gen. Abizaid] said.

“Flow of resources on which our nation depends”? What resources could he possibly be talking about? Could it be (gasp!) oil? But time and again, the trolls insisted the invasion was to free Iraqis, to “democratise” them, and had nothing to do with access to natural resources.

I will quote Gen Abizaid next time someone tells me the invasion had nothing to do with oil.

Well, we called it years ago, once again.

I just love the fact that when we were all saying this years ago, the trolls called us conspiracy theorists and that it wasn’t true. The trolls have once again been proven to be out of touch with reality.

I will be very interesting to see what else will turn out to be true.

The biggest problem is that you get a bunch of stupid ugly Americans like Hughes, Rove, Libby, Rummy together and they think they can make pies out of horse manure and sell them to the public. What are they smoking, it must be something illegal? No fool in his or her right mind would want to try to keep US troops in Iraq permanently to get mamed and kill by terrorist who want to die. It doesn’t take a lead weight to fall on me to see these guys and gal are nuts. Our troops are already up to their necks in terrorist and if you leave them there it’s open season on them. If they want to stay in Iraq so bad, why don’t they personally move there? They wouldn’t and we all know why.

Thirdly, we don’t have anything to gain by staying in Iraq except dead soldiers. It’s not like they are giving us free oil or anything. For those fools who think we need to stay in Iraq, I say start making more coffins for our soldiers. How many flag draped coffin does it take for them to ge the message? I’m all for war, but I’d like our troops to have leaders who understand how to win and have a plan to win. We don’t need more General who will say what ever the pentagon wants to save their job. What we need is a General who doesn’t care more about his job than he does his troops. I’m sure that General Abizaid is a fine man, loving husband and father, but he has no guts when it comes to standing up and telling the truth. I don’t expect him to say we are losing, but he knows we aren’t winning either. Why is it that every three or four months the President has to go around making speeches about how we are winning in Iraq.

The reason is that we have no plan to win in Iraq and haven’t ever had one. I served under General Tommy Franks in Germany and I saw what type of General he was. He was a political General then and still is to this day. My commanders submitted a recommendation of a Meritorious Medal to be awarded to me for a job well done, General Franks turned it down, saying , “That award was reserved for high ranking officers, not enlisted men”, or words that effect. I was a Sergeant and my commanders once introduced me to General Colin Powell, by telling Gen Powell I was the top soldier in my job in Germany. My commanders obviously thought very highly of me or they wouldn’t have recommended me for a medal that few enlisted soldiers are given. I was so disappointed at one point I refused to except the downgraded medal Gen Franks did approve, because I had already been awarded it several times before. My point in telling this story is that Generals often act without all of the facts. They recommended me for the highest medal because I had the best statics in the European theater of operation, had personally designed a new procedure for the entire United States Army to use without being asked to, and was already one to the most highly decorated soldiers in my unit.

These contradictions have actually made other nations even more distrustful of the double-standard policies of the United States, which will have serious repercussions for the U.S. and the entire international community.

Due to its political confusion, the U.S. has exacerbated crises in the Middle East.

U.S. officials’ constant accusations against Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, will only increase tension in the region, which are already reaching the breaking point.

Therefore, the United States should formally apologize to Iran for its unjustified slanders of the Islamic Republic over the past three years. Otherwise, Iran may file a lawsuit against the United States in international courts.

I agree partly. It was one of the reasons why the Saudi ‘royal family’ (GWB’s “good friends”) funded and directed the attacks of that day.

And what the U.S. response to that Saudi attack should have been was a massive and hostile military build-up to that base, instead of a closing of it (and instead of a senseless and distractionary invasion and occupation of Iraq).

A massive and hostile military build-up of that base in response to the attacks of 9-11 (and a bombing FLAT of the Saudi ‘royal palace’, and the absolute destruction of that murderous ‘royal family’).

I’d have gone in a heartbeat.

The American Goverment – mass murdering petty thiefs

America the nation of petty murdering thiefs

Later it was revealed the US was building “enduring” bases in Iraq.

The Pentagon and the White House have both denied the presence of permanent bases all along, all the while obfuscating and giving non-answers, like the one given by Gen. Abizaid.

To say that the US “may maintain” bases is misleading at best. There is no question these bases are being built to ensure a permanent American presence in Iraq.

Global Securities has a great article on these “enduring” bases, complete with names for each one of the bases -both in English and Arabic: Iraq Facilities.

Global Policy Forum has a great deal of information on the Iraq occupation and also about these so-called “enduring” bases: ‘Enduring Bases’ in Iraq: US Presence for Decades

Also, let’s not forget the high financial cost of the construction and maintenance of said bases. As of September 2004, “The total cost of the Iraq war has reached $125 billion to $140 billion, estimates Mr. Adams. Reconstruction boosts the total to as high as $175 billion. Permanent bases would keep the tab running for years to come.”
US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math

All of this to “protect the flow of oil”. How much carnage will the Iraqis endure so the US and the UK can satisfy their thirst for oil?

Comment by WiscoDuk — March 15, 2006 @ 1:31 pm

I think he thinks he is (Bowling for Columbine)… he just doesn’t know that we aren’t his usual recruits. :)