NationStates Jolt Archive

Hard to believe huh (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=621)?

Today, the House passed H.R. 2929, Banning Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq. This bill states that it is the policy of the United States not to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing a permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq. It also states that it is the policy of the United States not to exercise U.S. control of the oil resources of Iraq. The measure bars the use of any funds provided by any law from being used to carry out any policy that contradicts these statements of policy.
There goes my theory about the oil????

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 717 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll717.xml)

Will George Veto Bush veto this bill?

If I were Bush I certainly wouldn't. It sends several clear foreign policy messages to several different groups, and I feel that such a policy would be well advised.

I'm also pleased to see that my Congressman voted for it. Go Ralph, Go!

So did mine. That Mr. DeFazio's a good chap, he is he is.

Hmm, I'll need to read the whole thing to see if it has any teeth.

A lot is going to ride on definitions distinguishing between "permanent" and "indefinite."

Now that's what we call a landslide.

As well, my representative(Peterson-MN) was a Yea.

Good.

Oh this is a wonderful idea never mind the fact we have bases in Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and well every other place we liberated in WWII. Perhaps we'll close thoes bases down too, then life will truly be good.

Hard to believe huh (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=621)?


There goes my theory about the oil????

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 717 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll717.xml)

Will George Veto Bush veto this bill?

"This base isn't permanent, we have plans to disestablish it in 2200."

Happy to see my representative (Radanovich) voted for it at least.

Oh yeah, good idea.

Especially since if we do leave, we'll have to bail Iraq out when major chaos and murder ensues.

Bush should VETO if he has balls.

Oh this is a wonderful idea never mind the fact we have bases in Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and well every other place we liberated in WWII. Perhaps we'll close thoes bases down too, then life will truly be good.

...I'm sorry, exactly when did you "liberate" the UK? I don't recall the history books ever mentioning us being occupied.
You have bases here because we permit it, not because you invaded.

Permanent bases would just emphasise the fact that we conquered the place, not freed it.

...I'm sorry, exactly when did you "liberate" the UK? I don't recall the history books ever mentioning us being occupied.
You have bases here because we permit it, not because you invaded.

Permanent bases would just emphasise the fact that we conquered the place, not freed it.

We didn't conquer Saudi Arabia or Qatar and we have numerous bases there.

Oh this is a wonderful idea never mind the fact we have bases in Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and well every other place we liberated in WWII. Perhaps we'll close thoes bases down too, then life will truly be good.

The United States under no instance in its history did it 'liberate' Germany, Japan, nor the United Kingdom.

It's bases in UK are there under their explicit permission.

Japan and Germany were conquered. Get your facts right rather than that hypocritical "white man's burden of liberation" rubbish you like to spout.

We didn't conquer Saudi Arabia or Qatar and we have numerous bases there.
Qatar yes.......Saudi Arabia no (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm)

This law already exists? Also, it flies in the face of another law that will actually allow control of Iraq oil by (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/) western companies?

An English version of a new Iraqi oil law leaked in mid 2006. This leaked English version shocked a number of specialists, like Erik Leaver from the institute for Policy Studies, because it had some exact text from a previously leaked seminar papers produced by a private contracting company called “Bearing Point”. Taking in consideration that the law privatises Iraq’s oil and opens the doors for U.S. companies to sign long term contracts controlling Iraq’s oil resources and infrastructure, this law is in violation of existing U.S. Public Law No: 109-234 that says: “To provide that no funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.” U.S. contractors, such as Bearing Point, have been working with the U.S. State Department to draft the Iraqi Oil law and the State Department has been pushing for the privatization of Iraq’s oil in plans dating as far back as 2002.
Hmmmmm

This law already exists? Also, it flies in the face of another law that will actually allow control of Iraq oil by (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/) western companies?


Hmmmmm

There's a lot of pressure on the Iraqi government to get that law passed, but at the moment, the Iraqi President doesn't even have a quorum of ministers with the Sunnis walking out of the government. The oil law as proposed was recently opposed by over 60% of Iraqis in a recent poll--they want government control. Anyone surprised by that?

Well I admit it would certainly look bad if Bush vetoed this bill given the bold text in the OP, it would look like a justification of imperialism etc.

I think Iraq should annex america....Iraq has been there long enough!

Mind you, there's worse things in life than having a US base in the neighbourhood.

But that goes moreso for Germany than for Iraq (the mortars might become a bit of a pain). Or Okinawa, for that matter.

Will George Veto Bush veto this bill?

Just give him time to search all the difficult words on the dictionary and he'll veto it.

All you bases are belong to other countries.

...I'm sorry, exactly when did you "liberate" the UK? I don't recall the history books ever mentioning us being occupied.
You have bases here because we permit it, not because you invaded.

Permanent bases would just emphasise the fact that we conquered the place, not freed it.

That is only because you have "European" history books.

My Representative (Michaud, ME) voted for it. Good. Now I only have to vote against Susan Collins in '08.

Hard to believe huh (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=621)?


There goes my theory about the oil????

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 717 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll717.xml)

Will George Veto Bush veto this bill?

Nice job, Congress. :) Of course El Cowboy will veto this bill. Our beloved president knows his power's slipping, so he'll just veto every bill that moves.

My Representative (Michaud, ME) voted for it. Good. Now I only have to vote against Susan Collins in '08.

Congressman Andrews voted for it. He's voted to my liking recently. He would keep my vote, but he's run unopposed the last few elections. :p

That won't stop the deployment of Happy Fun Ball.

My representative voted yes. And he compared the Iraq war to a baseball game.....

Bush won't veto.

Something tells me this would not stop the US from doing the kind of thing it did in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi built places like King Khalid Military City, with their own money, and help from US contractors, and US military advisors.

If US forces are needed, or come to do joint training exercises, they use the permanent Saudi base.

Given that US contractors have been building barracks and rebuilding airfields in Iraq since 2004 for Iraqi forces (some are already complete), and if in the future (when our forces withdraw, yet still come for joint exercises), we'll have the use of those "permanent" Iraqi bases.

KKMC in Saudi sits largely empty and unused when we're not there. So do many Saudi airfields, tank parks, vehicle wash racks, fuel depots, etc.

My representative voted yes. And he compared the Iraq war to a baseball game.....

Bush won't veto.

Might not have to. Unless I missed something in the original article, this still has to get through the Senate, and that's never a done deal until the votes are counted.

Congressman Andrews voted for it. He's voted to my liking recently. He would keep my vote, but he's run unopposed the last few elections. :p

Well, Michaud saved himself. If he'd have voted against it, he'd be on my "needs to be defeated" list. Collins is there because she voted for the Millitary Commissions Act. Anyone that would vote to undermine our rights like that is not getting my vote. Our other Senator, Olympia Snowe, abstained because she was up for re-election last year and knew that if she had voted for it, she could have lost her seat.