Which explains why the American media are pumping the world, particularly Iraq, with lies about Bush's agenda and tactics. The media are giving it their best attempt at painting Bush a Crusader, a tyrant, a liar and an oil thief, with hopes that we pull out prematurely...The left media realizes if we pull out, if they undermine Iraqi and American support for the effort, the vaccuum will be filled with a total collapse of Iraq. If and when Iraq collapses the media will forget about their calls for withdrawal and focus on what a mess Iraq is and how Bush and Republicans created it.

The media (extension of the Democrat party) are trying to Vietnamize Iraq. They are trying to lose it and then blame the loss on Bush.

Might that stretch to 50 or so years? Depends who you ask I suppose.

Edit - I might add that I'm not particularly concerned either way whether the US stays there for 50 years or not.

It is a very strategic location. I imagine we will maintain a presence as long as they want us (as in the countries of other allies)....and it is rare for a country to turn away a US base because it is profitable and reduces the need for expenditure in self defense. On the other hand, we have friends that would welcome us in the old eastern bloc countries that are reasonably close by.

They could say leave tomorrow....or in 50 years. IMHO, we would probably do either depending on their self-sufficiency.

Indeed it is a very strategic location. Out of interest, how are us bases profitable? I had an interesting conversation with a Japanese person regarding this very issue.

I'd put a zero percent chance on the US leaving three years after stability if a (democratically elected) hardline Islamic govt asked you to leave.

You'll leave when it suits you, just the same as you entered. It would be naive to think otherwise and it looks kinda silly arguing otherwise (especially if you get any further in the semantics).

You said it yourself - Iraq is important/strategic. You'll leave under duress, I would imagine, but not of your own volition, and even then only if you think it is sufficiently in your interests (ie, its not viewed as some threat to you if you leave).

And you don't need a $500m land grab in Baghdad. If I was an Iraqi, that would really piss me off.

We will have bases and military presence in Iraq until the oil supply starts running out. Duh.

You miss my point. You are the one who brought up the "50 years" comment and now are the one who needs to prove it to the point where everyone feels that you are correct, otherwise its a a "laughably incorrect" point as you say it.

I can "grasp" a lot but there needs to be some fact or something to grab onto first, and the idea that you proposed is very slim. If you would have said 10 years I would have agreed, 20 possible but doubt it and here is where you need to start providing proof. I could say that the moon is made out of a thick iron core and you might believe it, while if I said that it was made out of cheese you would want proof. Its time for you to offer up your proof and using countries that we have occupied after WW2 are not going to make it.

Your point number 2 is associated with countries that we occupied after World War 2 and nothing like the situation we have in Iraq. One exception is Korea, which was and still is an ongoing United Nations conflict. We are there at the request of the United Nations and South Korea, so that one is tossed out. Italy was never occupied and controlled as were Germany and Japan and if the Italians did not want us there we would be gone as soon as we could get things packed up.

None in Vietnam? Correct, just as there are none in several countries in the Pacific or North Africa that we occupied during WW2, as well as China, India, Sweden, Denmark, Mexico, Somolia, Grenada, Haiti, very few in Bosnia. You post four countries where you feel it supports your side and I can post close to fourteen countries where we went in, restored peace and got out.

Your move, lets see some proof of the "50 year occupation" or fold your cards cause you aint anywhere close to winning this hand at this time.

How much oil have we gotten from Iraq since the war started? Will give you a hand, its ZERO!

It ends badly for some, particularly the millions killed in all those lands in order to "save them from themselves". It ended quite well for the connected few, the Bank of England is one of the wealthiest on the planet, there are still quite a few of the monied aristocracy they're just really quiet these days, and a few others. Oh yes, it ended poorly for those soldiers who gave their lives so the merchantile class could acquire all that wealth.

Hmmm, striking similarities I'd say. The ruling elite in America, our oligarchy, will spend what it takes of the people's money, and soldiers lives, to achieve the same thing. The Bush dynasty could really care less how many soldiers die, or how many Iraqis or Afghanis are killed.

It's not about getting the oil, it's all about controlling the flow of it and profiting from the sale of it. That's much more important than getting it and bringing it here, control mid-east oil and have significant control over the developing economies of China and India.

Very good question. When the residents of Vieques island in Puerto Rico started trying to get the US Navy to stop bombing an island we had used for that purpose since WW2 they forgot to do their homework. We had purchased part of the island in 1942 but now some of the natives did not want us there.

The finally made so much noise that the US Navy pulled their people out of there as they had been asked. Problem is that once this happened the vibrant economy that the area had once had fell flat on their face. The billions of dollars of money that the military had spent in the area stopped and the all of a sudden everyone was unemployed. The locals did not look ahead and had no idea that this would happen.

Lets look to various towns in Germany that thrived next to or near a US Military base. When Slick Willie decided to downsize the military in the 1990's he started closing bases in Europe right and left. Many locals were happy to see the bases closed. Fast forward a couple of years and their economy has again been dealt a serious blow and will take up to 10 years to recover.

Same thing in the Philippines when we closed our bases there. For many years the economy was severely depressed in that area. Now many locals around the world are realizing how much having a US Military base in their country benefits the locals.

Well, if we are going to control it, we sure are not being very successful at the moment! Price continues to raise and we have little to no control over any of the mideastern oil.

Joe, you're not watching then. The US government has significant control over almost all of the oil in the mideast, with the British and Dutch controlling quite a bit too. the Bush dynasty has no interest in lowering oil prices to what they were five years ago, why would they?

I can see you're thinking of a benevolent government activity, when there is no such thing.

In 2002 or 2003, or both, China used almost 40% of the world's available cement with which to make concrete for their massive road building program. I would expect their use of petroleum as fuel alone to be on a steep escalator, that's driving price as well.

I think you are being just a little silly Joe, regarding "proof". Its an opinion, clearly offered as such, for discussion. You have every right to disagree and argue accordingly, which you have done and made some very valid points.

Time will tell, wont it? Ive got a dozen Squire India Pale Ales that says Im right. Alas, you and I wont probably wont be around to settle up.

Cheers

Stuart

ever think that was the PLAN from day one
limit the oil flow on to the world markets
and there by jack the price of oil sky high
there by jack the OIL CORPs income too

it never was about CHEAP OIL
lower supply in a high demand market
results in max return for the oil CORPs
the very people who bought BuSh2 into office

btw goddamm insane was not a fan of the al-kiddias
nore did they like him
IRAN with the religious NUT leaders is more the al-kiddia's style of goverment then a non religious leader like insane was

afgan and tali-ban was a good target
iraq was not , should have been iran or saudi next
remember ben and 14 of 19 were saudi
and NONE were fron iraq