You know, I used to think you were at least coherent. Wrong, but coherent.

So if the Americans had ANY sense

I think I have spotted the flaw in your argument.

In 1930 Iraq was formally given independence, but, according to no less an authority than the BBC (and who better?) ‘most Iraqis believed that the British really ruled the country.’

To continue: ‘In fact Iraq remained a satellite of Britain for the next three decades, under the terms of a treaty signed the same year (1930), which included the retention of British military bases and an agreement to train the Iraqi army.’

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_03.shtml)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_04.shtml

Ignoring for a moment the reinvasion of ‘41 (in which, I was interested to learn, the British also invaded and occupied Iran…..) the British continued to pull strings behind the scenes, being constantly pushed away by the Iraqs, but always attempting to bind Iraqi hands (the last attempt was the Baghdad Pact of ‘55).

Kuwait of course didn’t break free of the British till ‘61, at which point the Iraqis decided that they wanted it back : ‘In 1961, after Kuwait had gained independence from Britain, the Iraqi leader, General Kassem, claimed it as an integral part of Iraq and concentrated his troops on the frontier, with the intention of taking it by force. Britain was ready, however, and dispatched troops stationed in the Gulf region to dissuade the Iraqis from armed conflict. The crisis was settled temporarily by a coup in Baghdad that overthrew Kassem, and was organised – it would seem – with the help of the United States.’

This Ba’ath coup (‘it would seem with the help of the United States’) was the end of Iraq democracy and independence, of which they had had a grand total of 5 years in the 20th century. (the Ba’ath coup was in ‘63). And we all know about the US’ cosy relationship with the Ba’ath and Saddam Hussein.

In other words, to most Iraqis, the presence of military bases and foreigners training their army are not viewed as in any sense positive things, but instead as part of a pattern of neo-colonialism that led to the rise of Saddam and Ba’ath party atrocities.

So if the Americans had ANY sense they would go out of their way to deny that they were going to position long term military bases in the country.

So why would they not do this, unless they WERE going to position long term military bases in the country?

Exactly. That’s the analogy. But you seem to be implying that the US does not now maintain an explicit veto right over any particular Iraqi government policy. That’s weird. Maybe they’ll kick us out, irregardless of what US politicians want. Right. That’s absurd.

soru, you’re not making much sense. You’ve been wrong about every factual question you’ve asked, you were wrong about every outcome of the war, and now you’re arguing for what, exactly? Another trillion dollars applied to your crusade? They’re going to execute Saddam very soon, the country is utterly destroyed, the three way civil war looks to be entrenched for decades, and we didn’t even get the oil.

My wife says we really should have invaded Mexico instead. The beaches are a lot better, and we could have gotten rid of the poor brother syndrome just as the Germans did. And the Mexicans have teh oil!

The relationship between the USA and Cuba is not one where the US asks Castro nicely if he would be kind enough to let the troops there be resupplied with another month’s food and water.

#77: wasn’t intended to be scare quotes, just marking a descriptive name (probably should have been underscores).

Intent is not capability. The US certainly intended to have permanent bases in Iraq, what it lacked was the capability to execute such a plan.
(Of course, maybe I am wrong and Bush and those Republican senators are right. Anyone care to make that bet?)

Every intelligent man who lived through the American Civil War or World War I recognized that that the effects of war have little relation to purported war aims or expectations. Supporters of the invasion obviously still ignore, that truth as it applies to Iraq.

Everything else in that paragraph, however, seems to suggest that the US does, in fact, intend to establish a permanent presence in Iraq—and that you’re OK with us, even though it’s a stupid and doomed idea that will cause (has caused) horrific suffering, because you only supported the other part of the war…you know, the good part.

Am I getting warmer?

The sad fact is, the bloody and doomed ‘war to establish US bases’, was, given the reality of politics in 2003, an unfortunate but in practical terms unavoidable consequence of the ‘war to depose Saddam’ I specifically supported. You go to war with the President you have, not the President you would like to have.

p.s. is it reasonable to ask that the people who repeatedly accuse me of not answering questions asked acknowledge that in that particular small area, they are wrong?

Gitmo

Soru’s a dead ender people, he’s iteratively demonstrated an exquisite intellect utterly impervious to evidence. Museum quality, yes; debatable, no.