| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| No permanent bases in Iraq - Bush |
| 2008-06-12 |
| (VOI)- U.S. President George W. Bush said on Wednesday he expects to seal a security pact with Iraq but added there were no plans for permanent U.S. bases there. "I think we'll end up with a strategic agreement with Iraq," Bush said at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He called media reports that there were plans to build permanent U.S. bases in Iraq "erroneous", adding there was "all kinds of noise" about the issue in the United States and Iraq. A declaration of principles was signed between U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in December 2007. The declaration was planned to be ratified on July 31, 2008 to be effective as of January 1, 2009. The agreement governs the U.S. forces' presence in Iraq after the year 2008. This presence currently relies on a mandate by the UN, renewed annually upon the request of the Iraqi government. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #8 sounds like any place we actually had the desire and will. Our record of generosity precedes us and we have nothing to apologize for. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-06-12 22:55 |
| #7 Permanent bases would be ones that have 99 year leases with auto renewal clauses. Sounds like Gitmo. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-12 21:43 |
| #6 Technically, the US has no permanent bases in Germany, Japan, or Korea. Especially since we gave back Okinawa to the Japanese in 1970s. Permanent bases would be ones that have 99 year leases with auto renewal clauses. Technically and legally, the only permanent US military bases are on American soil - whether in a state, a territory, a Commonwealth, or an administrated area. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2008-06-12 21:36 |
| #5 I remember working out of 'temp' building in Korea in '88. Hell, I remember working out of WWII temp buildings at Fort Drum in '87. It just means the troops get to live and operate in substandard facilities, so pols can say there are no 'permanent' bases. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-06-12 08:08 |
| #4 Yea, "temporary" can streeeetch, as needed. "Permanent" may be perceived as a bad word, or sumthin. |
| Posted by: Spike Uniter 2008-06-12 03:06 |
| #3 Depends on what the meaning of the word 'permanent' is. |
| Posted by: Slick edster 2008-06-12 00:45 |
| #2 I think this statement is for US and Iraqi domestic consumption. In order for a base to be permanent the USA must hold it in perpetuity. The only one I am aware of is Gitmo. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2008-06-12 00:43 |
| #1 Not even 1? Didn't we just spend $543,236,299,998 dollars on them? |
| Posted by: Threse Ghibelline5495 2008-06-12 00:31 |