Re: Link between Saddam and Al Qaeda confirmed
 

Old news. They partied together at Lauderdale during spring break '01.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1151454172.jpg

You judge by your own actions, I think.

I am simply making a prediction based on historical and present day reality.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/i...mperialmap.jpg

I'm not sure about 50 years, but more likely than not, the suggested decrease in troops will not likely happen, security won't be obtained, and three years will extend into at least the decade that Vietnam was.

50 years is a pretty safe bet. I've heard we are building at least one permanent base in Iraq. And what's it been since VE and VJ days? 60+ years? We're still in Germany and Japan.

Re: Re: Link between Saddam and Al Qaeda confirmed
 

Plus, of course, the obvious:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1151457102.jpg

we'll have a great suntan by then...

The Bush'ists have already suggested that the US government will be there for a generation, Joe. That's about 50 years give or take.

And your wonderful colored chart show where that we will be in any country on the map in 50 years? Please enlighten us because I could not see any mention there of duration...

I am not sure what you are asking.

But on the basis of present day deployment, its reasonable to assume that the US will maintain troops and bases in Iraq for the foreseeable future. On the basis of history, they may well still be there in, say, 50 years.

I havent heard a reasoned rebuttal from you, just .....denial.

No...but I can show you the former Brittish empire as an example....(it ends badly ;) )



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1151465030.jpg

Depends on what your particular metric happens to be. Ahead of schedule, perhaps, if you are more interested in lives lost and money wasted than real progress toward peace in the Middle East.

I'll reword Stuart's statement - you'll have troops and bases in Iraq for 50 years unless your forced out.

You know you'll be there by choice and $500m of embassy suggests the long haul.

Proof, I am asking you to grow a backbone and support your statement by providing proof. Most people would have done this with their initial statement but you tried to WAG it in front of everyone. Sorry but it did not work...

"On the basis of history they may well still be there in, say, 50 years." Boy, what a strong statement with loads of proof to back it up! "May well" is very decisive and builds confidence in your statement.

Other than Germany or Japan, we have stayed in no foreign country as an occupied force for 50 years and these were after a World War, which is far from what we are in at this time. We have no history of having done this in the past and would love to hear your reasoning as to why everything has changed now for us to occupy everywhere for such a long time.

You are the one with an argument to prove, that America will stay anywhere for 50 years, so prove it or shut up. As far as denial, you are the one boasting then not able to prove it so lets see you either put up or shut up bucko!

The embassy simply states that we want a diplomat presence there, like we have in New Zealand right now. Would you want us to pull our diplomatic misson out of New Zealand?

Please provide proof that shows that we will be there 50 years? Help Stuart with his civics lesson since he cannot come up with a good argument.

Great progress has been made towards peace.

More noise Joe. What sort of "proof" of a prediction 50 years out would you like? Most people here cab grasp ideas like this and discuss them sensibly- what say you give it a go?

There two premises for a long term stay in Iraq.

1. The nature of the current deployment in Iraq and the language of the US govt.
2. The historical fact that the US continues to maintain significant military presence and operates bases in countries such as Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea 50 and 60 years after it occupied those countries. Oddly, there is none in Vietnam.

What about some reasons why you think Im so laughably incorrect?

Your embassy here wouldn't even crack the $5m barrier. For a start, its not a standalone building. Why build a $500m embassy on prime riverside real estate unless you have very long term plans for the country or the region.

Two possible reasons for a more robust building/presence in Iraq than NZ.:

1..Iraq is an important country

2. The building in Iraq needs to be a bit more sturdy/defensible

So fint, how long do you think America will keep a substantial military presence in Iraq? That's a straight out curious question btw.

As long as we are welcome.