Do you notice anything curious about where all the military bases are placed in Iraq?

[Quixote1818]

Who does it look like we are getting ready to attack?

[Monkeyman]

1. Only Target Iran

[A HERETIC I AM]

2. Overlay that same map on this one. Iraqi Oil Fields.

There's your real reason

[HereSince1628]

8. Bingo! Well, I think I heard a BINGO anyway...

No doubt. The *administration has a liquid fossil fuel fetish.

[FogerRox]

13. One overlay comin up....

[FightingIrish]

3. We're going to need those bases

now that the gulf states have said their territory cannot be used to attack Iran. Take a close up look at those bases on Google Earth and tell me that they have anything to do with fighting an insurgency. We were building those bases long before the civil war started

[seemslikeadream]

4. They're planning the crime of the century

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moy513mIeB0&eurl=

Now they're planning the crime of the century
Well what will it be?
Read all about their schemes and adventuring
It's well worth a fee
So roll up and see
And they rape the universe
How they've gone from bad to worse
Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
Rip off the masks and let see.
But that's no right - oh no, whats the story?
There's you and there's me
That can't be right

[lazer47]

7. We have already done the crime of the century

[Vulture]

5. Not to point out the obvious...

...but you obviously have no clue what western Iraq is like or this would not surprise you. It is very sparsely populated wasteland for the most part.

Those military bases follow the Tigris river valley, and roughly maps to where the Iraqi population centers are located which are all in the same said valley. No conspiracy required for this pattern.

[DCKit]

6. Except for the fact that we're building permanent military bases

Bushco has NO intention of ever leaving their oil unguarded.

[happyslug]

9. Need to look at the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

Outside of those rivers the rest of Iraq is worthless desert. The bases seems to be just east of the Tigris. With three need Baghdad where these two river come close to meeting but then separate again and merge at Barsa. Nasiriyah is actually on the Euphrates as the Tigris nears the Iranian Border.

[w13rd0]

10. That "worthless desert"...

...must be the part of Iraq that is, as Bush says, "most of Iraq is peaceful"...that's the most. As for the military bases, we all know Bush is full of shit and intended this to be an American colony and staging ground in the Middle East for further actions and protection of oil resources. What's the surprise?

[wmbrew0206]

12. You left out most of the bases in the Al Anbar province

There are lots of bases in the western part of Iraq (the Al Anbar province) that follows the Euphrates River from Syria to just west of Baghdad before it turns south to the gulf. You left these off the original map. When you added them in, you get a much different picture. The above poster is right though, most of Al Anbar is desert with all the population centers along the river.

The most peaceful part of Iraq right now is the north (Kurdish area) and the south (Shia area). The contested areas are Baghdad, Al Anbar, and just north of Baghdad. All these areas are either Sunni (the west and north of Baghdad) or Sunni mixed with Shia.

American forces are actually turning over control of bases and area's to the Iraqi army as they become proficient enough. I would not call that building a colony.

[happyslug]

15. Who are in control of these troops? That is more important than who are the troops.

Right now the "Iraqi Army" is under the control of the US. The "Iraqi Army" is made up of men and officers from Iraq, but are NOT independent of US Command. As the "Iraqi Army" Stands up this will continue. From the end of the Philippine rebellion right after the War with Spain till 1946 the Philippines Army was under US Army command. The Filipino Army was made up of Filipino officers and men, but till 1946 (and for many years afterward) was under US Control. The British did the same with India, the Indian Army was under the control of the British until Independence(Many India Army units were used by the British outside of India during both WWI and WWII). Another Example is the "King's African Rifles" which were Native Troops used by the British in Africa. France did the same with its Colonial forces (Many of Which served in the French Army in France during WWI and WWII). The Classic case is the "Royal America" Regiment first raised in the French and Indian war and reformed for use in the Revolution AGAINST America. The Royal Americans was raised in America in both wars (Through in the Revolution it had less and less Americans in the Unit as the war dragged on). For more on the Royal Americans see http://www.militaryheritage.com/60thregt.htm

My point is the mere fact something is called the "Iraqi Army" does NOT mean we are NOT setting up a Colonial Government. Most colonial Government raise local troops to asst the host country's army. This reduces the lost to the home country's troops and thus lessen demands from the people of the Home Country to bring their troops home.

As to the Kurds, the Turks are threatening to invade, and the Shiites will revolt if Bush attacks Iran. Neither set of Troops have been defeated and are waiting for the opportune time to strike. Like Saddam we fear the Shiites more than the Kurds so the recent attacks in Baghdad is to destroy the Shiite militia. That is the sign of a Colonial Government, to crush ANY group who the Colonial Government feel is a threat to the Colonial Government.

[Breeze54]

11. There's more than that!

And where's Camp Bushwacker ???

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq.htm

[NashVegas]

14. An Equally Important Map - Afghanistan Bases - Iran Sandwich w/Mayo

[bridgit]

16. hm, that's odd, they seem to be right round the oil fields...

naw...the bfee wouldn't kill all those people, spill so much innocent blood, and spend mountain ranges of borrowed money for oil would they :sarcasm: